I have spoken with members of the Diku and Merc teams, and they have made it very clear that Medievia went against their wishes. Vryce's actions harm the mudding community as a whole, but it seems there is little we can do except ostracise him, and inform the public about his activities. Many of us do this in an attempt to protect our hobby, so that other mud developers will continue to release their work, knowing that someone will stick up for them. In most cases, the approach works, and the muds in question will return to following the licenses. There are the occasional exceptions, but we cannot selectively ignore them or it would undermine our efforts with all other muds.

I have not spoken with the Tolkien estate, and apparently so far neither have you. There is a considerable amount of Tolkien fan-fiction such as muds, and an equal amount of precedent for the Tolkien estate rapidly (and heavily) "dealing" with those it doesn't want using its work. The mud owner has told them that he's planning to use their work (as they requested), and is using it in a similar way to numerous existing muds, some of which have been around for over a decade. Furthermore, the Tolkien copyright is not a mud issue - and while I would most likely report someone who I knew was violating such a copyright, I cannot right all of the worlds wrongs. You'll notice that people don't complain about abortions here, either, or about animal testing, or hungry children in third world countries. This is Top Mud Sites - a site about muds - and it is aspects of mudding that should be discussed. It doesn't make is inconsistent, it just means that we fight our battles in the appropriate places. When charities ask me for a donation, I don't berate them for giving all that money to old people when it could be used to enforce mud licenses - do you?

Let's imagine a scenario where this forum wasn't about muds, but instead about fantasy fiction. Within this scenario, let's imagine that there's someone called "Traithe" who had claimed credit for Tolkien's work, and earned large sums of money from it. Within this scenario, let's say that Tolkien didn't have the resources to deal with Traithe, and so he gave up writing after book 1, telling us that "Traithe was indeed one of the major reasons I stopped writing books, and found other places to spend my energy". Now, that would be comparible.

Your points, however, are not.

Nonsense. Implied licenses are perfectly valid within certain situations.

Just because it needs to be said, an obvious difference between Vryce and Traithe is that one was done through secrecy, lies, and denial, while the other one has put warnings in his game, is willing to put disclaimers on his website, and is level-headed enough to discuss issues rationally in this forum.

Vryce has operated under the false premise that his work is not a derivative, but made from scratch, and appears to live his life upholding that lie, deleting any evidence found that would uncover said lie. He has been actively censured by the original creators of the work that he stole, and actively makes money off of something he didn't create.

Traithe is very open about the fact that his work is, in fact, a Tolkien work, and has not made any statement that would lead any rational being to believe that he claims to have created any part of Middle Earth or any of Tolkien's creations. He does not profit from this usage, and has not been commented on for good or for bad by the original work's creators (or representatives thereof). He has taken all steps that are required of him to do this the correct, legal way.

Bottom line, I'd stick with the legal argument. Because morally, there really isn't any comparison. Call them both thieves, but I think we all know which one of them we'd rather meet in a dark alley.

the_logos wrote the following:

Here is a quote from another thread of Raymond Feist, author of many fantasy books, and someone probaby more knowledgeable about this than any of us:

This implies that if an owner does know about the work and does not make a reasonable attempt to protect their rights (and one simple way of doing this would be by making a public statement about the use in question, or else sending a form letter to the rejected party), then they can be considered lax in the eyes of the law, which further implies that their rights can thus be given away.

Here is a quote from Robert Jordan from an interview with (jointly) Dragonmount.com and wotmania.com. It addresses his feelings about WoT-oriented fan fiction:

If I were with RJ when he was writing that, I would have disagreed with him on his world being a different matter; nevertheless, with that statement he made it clear that he doesn't care one way or another at this time.  So as long as a mud is just using the world and not the characters, it can generally be assumed that the mud goes along with RJ's wishes.  While I suppose it might be a grey area, I would advise people to remove even NPCs that are actual WoT characters.  From RJ's quote, a mud using his characters does go against his wishes, unless he explicitely makes an exception. (On the other hand, simply mentioning characters such as current rulers as part of the setting rather than as part of the action would probably be okay, though care should be taken.)

But another important part of the quote is that RJ said he "MUST" do something about it as a matter of protecting his copyrights.  While this quote doesn't say it as plainly as Feist's, I infer from it added evidence that the owner of the copyright does indeed have some limited obligation.  Without further research (which I don't desire to do at this time), I don't know what this obligation would amount to exactly.  But I would guess that consistent failure to deny permission when a person has done everything you have specifically requested and more in order to receive permission amounts to being "lax" in the eyes of the law.

What Feist also seems to be saying is pretty much what I pointed out earlier: If he doesn't know about it, if it's in a relatively private venue, then it's a case of "no blood, no foul." He's not lax if he doesn't know about it. Don't ask, don't tell mentality. The problems seem to arise once he and Robert Jordan become specifically (and publicly) aware of the games.

I guess what's really confusing me about Logos' working himself into a hysterical, froth-mouthed mess on the issue is that Traithe did say he was looking into T-Ent's response. He sent them a snail mail long before Logos began to flip out and said he'd drive down personally to ask them directly if he didn't see an answer. He's also said that if he gets a refusal, he'd be the first to take down his game. I'm not real sure where Logos is justifying action on his own part. It looks vindictive and over-hasty -- and is wholly unncecessary right now.

I guess I don't see where reprehensible, thievery, comparisons to King Twit Vryce, and whatnot fit into this. Those are awfully strong words and accusations, for someone who implicitly claims to be logical, moral, and rational. Unlike Vryce, particularly, Traithe -does- care about this issue and is actively working it. I trust Traithe's integrity way more than I trust Logos', who needs to seriously remove the beam in his eye (and read 1 Corinthians 13 lots, since he does appear to be of that faith) before going after the mote in others'. He looks like more and more of an overreactive, inappropriately-behaving prig the further he goes. You'd think he'd be -thrilled- Traithe is so proactive about the matter, but no, he just blasts in calling names and making threats and accusations. Is he even vaguely aware how ridiculous it looks that he called T-Ent -and- emailed them to hound them into action, when Traithe has already contacted them appropriately and has stated more than once his firm intent to do as they tell him? Just what is Logos' malfunction here?

The time for action against Traithe would be when T-Ent turns him down and he -doesn't- close his mud. At that time, I expect Logos will gloat wickedly, and then move on to one of the other 50 kabillion muds using established game settings. I fully expect to see him froth at the mouth just as bad about them as he does about this mud. Oh yeah, though.... few of those others are actually anywhere near the top 30 in votes, are they? I hope Logos gets his mess figured out. Till then, this childish, stubborn display doesn't make him, or his mud, look very good.

Caris, SciallaMud

PS: It's the height of boorish insensitivity that Logos has compared theft of a codebase to losing his own child to cancer. That is actually what made me want to stick my nose into this discussion to start with. Got news for ya, Logos. I've got a mom dying of cancer. If it'd cure her, I'd leave my car, my house, my codebase, my computer, you name it, open and unlocked -- and I'd advertise in the Sunday paper for thieves to come take whatever makes them happy. Nothing I own will make up for her death or comfort me when she is gone. A codebase is just a thing, when it comes down to it, and it's a shame you have such a lack of perspective and such misordered priorities that you'd compare theft of a thing to the death of a family member. Comparing it to theft of a car or of your wallet, sure. I can see that easily. But to the death of your own child? Gods forbid you ever actually have any and see just how wrong you are. Maybe you need to get out a bit more.

It's odd that those who are worst at analogies seem fondest of them.

Caris

Funny you'd say that since we're talking about a mud.
Can't say I've ever heard of any such thing as an implied license.

--matt

No, he hasn't. He has not been granted a license from either Tolkien group or Vivendi Universal.

What he's doing is illegal. What he's doing is immoral in my opinion. And what he's doing is most certainly rude if nothing else. His entire argument seems to be based on some sort of sense of entitlement: I DESERVE to be using the Tolkien IP, and #### it, if they don't reply to my letter requesting a license, why I'll just go ahead and use it anyway.

--matt

Sorry you've trouble with the concept of analogy. In no case did I even imply that the pain caused by those two actions are similar. They are obviously not.

--matt

This is a messed up attitude to me. Is it ok if I rob your house because I sent you a letter asking to do so and you failed to reply? Of course not. It would not be ok until I got permission from you to use your stuff.

If Traithe was ethical, he'd behave in an ethical manner. He would gain permission -first-. He has no right to run a mud based on someone else's IP without permission.


Actually, I used SoL purely as an example originally, and only because I saw them operating banner ads on this site. I've got no more problem with SoL than I do with any of the other IP thieves out there.

And you're right, I AM stubborn. I'm completely unwilling to excuse his behavior simply because he's better mannered than Vyrce. In fact, I do'nt care if he's Mother f*cking Theresa. He's still engaging in IP theft.

--matt

Tolkien wrote books, not muds.

Matt:

1. Why do you feel such a burning need to convince people that you are right?

2. Why is it so unholy-offensive to you that people disagree with you, and so totally outside the bounds of reason that you might, just MIGHT, be wrong?

3. Why are you so singularly incapable of recognizing when you are beaten? Why are you so proud of pigheaded stubbornness, which normal people view as a serious character flaw?

4. What about "Traithe's already looking into it and is perfectly willing to shut down if they tell him no" has entirely eluded you? Are you aware that your phone call to T-Ent marks you as a genuine loony tune?

5. Would you mind terribly just SHUTTING UP? YOU HAVE NOT SAID A SINGLE NEW THING SINCE DAY ONE OF YOUR RAMPAGING OBSSESSION WITH TRAITHE; YOU ARE GETTING BORING.

I don't really want answers to these purely rhetorical questions, though I know you will answer anyway; this thread's become your second job, after all. Facts are, nothing you've said yet has convinced anybody you're right, so it's doubtful you'll manage it with any more words. But do feel free to entertain us further with your constant and repetitious accusations, character slurs, and obssessive, irrational behavior. Oh, and those ridiculous "analogies", aka "comedy gold", you love so much (trouble? I only have trouble with BAD analogies, and yours are almost as bad as my fundie ex-husband's; it's too bad that -you- have trouble with making proficient analogies).

It is not valiant or admirable to keep up the fight long after you've lost; it is only the most obvious sign of a priggish, egocentric, and controlling personality. Maybe someday you'll understand. Till then, keep reaching for those stars!

Caris, SciallaMud
PS: KaVir, it's good to see your name again. Missed you.

Just because you say someone has 'lost' Caris, doesn't make it so. I personally haven't seen the_logos say anything that was untrue. They are using Tolkien's IP without permission, that -is- theft. Whether or not you like the word. Now if you want to argue that there is some moral justification for that, have at it.

And by the way, your wierd insistance that the_logos is somehow a 'genuine looney' and basically a whole slew of insults that amount to him being unworthy of posting here, are way worse than -anything- I've seen him post. Just thought I'd let you know, that you'll never, ever, ever win an argument if you can't attack the idea rather than the poster. I hope you can grasp that concept and move on, because your posts have been riddled with needless insult. There's a topic being discussed here, not a person.

Isn't there a flames thread somewhere around here, so people who want to read rational discussion can do so without reading crap like this?

Your argument is entirely dependant on the exclusive entitlement of IP, which is certainly not based on a moral standard as we see it today. It is a contract between the individual and society. Just because the law dictates your ethical standard with regards to IP does not mean that all of us are so blind that we do not see the purpose behind it. And if the general consensus is any indication, Traithe has been rather ethical in following this purpose.

You should really learn that Intellectual Property is not like other property. It is directly founded upon society with the individual "owner"'s contribution making only a small edifice on top. It is not unreasonable to allow someone to specifically admire this creation without the creator's express approval. IMO, Traithe is well within the boundaries of ethical behavior.

I stand corrected. Having said that, nothing on that page seems to even hint that the situation with all the thiefy muds would fall under implied licenses.

--matt

I don't. I feel a burning need to be right though. If being right means changing my opinion, I'm happy to do so. Haven't seen a reason to do so so far though. Remember that Traithe KNOWS he's stolen the IP under the law and has admitted it on this board.

Haven't seen any evidence so far that I'm wrong.

What part of "Obtain permission first." don't you understand? My phone call to Tolkien Enterprises marks me no more a loony than Kavir's hobby of attacking Medievia does. He even maintains a web page on it. And good for him too as IP thieves deserve attacking.


Lost? How odd. I'm sorry if you find my dedication to concepts like etiquette and IP law disturbing. Well, no, I'm not actually.

It's really very simple: If Traithe wishes to be on the right side of things, he gets permission -first-. Failing that, he's not got the iicense.

--matt

Just a point: New Line has nothing to do with this as they have license only to the movie version of Lord of the Rings.

Vivendi Universal got the rights to the online games and they have most assuredly NOT shown a willingness to allow people to intrude on their property. I don't know if the rights Vivendi has are exclusive or not.

*shrug* I was just following Topmudsites community etiquette. I see people use ad hominem attacks against other IP thieves like Vryce all the time, going so far as to use the word "Midthievia" in reference to them. If I"ve violated some community norm by referring to an IP thief as such, sorry.

And Tolkien did not borrow elves from anyone who had claim to elvish IP.

--matt

Oh sure, I recognize that the moral element of IP law is up for discussion. If you go back and read the whole thread, you'll see I specifically brought that point up. As for the general consensus though, I can't say I care. If it matters to you at all, the law do esn't really care either else Napster probably wouldn't have been shut down.
Actually, intellectual property isn't particularly different from other kinds of property except insofar as it is easily duplicateable. The concept of physical property a lso only exists because of the legal structure that surrounds it. In other words, you own a piece of land -only- because there's a piece of paper in some office somewhere saying you do. Nothing stopping me from creating a piece of paper saying I own the property. It's just a question of whose point of view the guns of government are going to enforce. That's a red herring I'm not intending to lay out for pursuit, however. Just pointing out that IP isn't really any different insofar as its value and applicability is entirely determined by the legal structure it takes place in.

I mean, you could argue that taking someone's car without permission is fine. If your moral position doesn't recognize the validity of private property, it probably is fine. Similarly you can argue that taking someone's IP without permission is fine.

I choose to do neither. They're both wrong.

--matt

But why is using someone's IP without permission wrong?

Any bonehead can come up with a reason why taking someone's car is wrong: It deprives them of their car, which the "rightful" owner (presumably) wholly compensated society for. Stealing the car deprives without compensation, therefore it is wrong.

IP is, as I'm sure you know, orders of magnitude more complex than that. It is nearly impossible to measure the value to society with a piece of IP. You might say, "That's not important, it's only the the value to the individual creator that's important," but that's simply not true: The creator was not educated in a vacuum, and we all know that Tolkien blatantly used many things from various societal myths. Furthermore, due to the ease with which information can be duplicated, the only thing that a copyright holder has to sell, really, is exclusivity by restricting what society at large may do. Those are two very important benefits that society has given to the copyright holder, and society is thus owed benefits in return. The extent and form of those benefits is the great grey area of IP ethics.

So I'm looking for some concrete wrong here, and I'm just not seeing it with your emphatic statements of wrong without explanation. Given that these ethics are a great big grey area, you'd think that we deserve some explanation before someone starts making these sorts of claims.

While I maintain that implication is a valid way to give permission, and thus a valid way to infer permission; I have to agree with the_logos in that the examples provided in the link about implied licenses don't seem to bolster such a defense very much in this specific case.

Now, the article did say that the extent of implied license is as of yet undecided. Nevertheless, the examples provided all seemed to be instances in which the owner of the copyright couldn't reasonably expect their original intentions to be followed without the violation of that copyright.

Thus, it would seem that Traithe needs evidence (though not absolute proof) that his project goes along with Tolkein's wishes (not merely their disapproving tolerance) in such a way that Tolkein Enterprises couldn't reasonably expect him to follow those intentions without violating the copyright. For this, Traithe would not need permission specifically about his own project, but he would need at least some type of broad, supportive statement about TE's intentions on the matter or a closely related matter.

Even if Tolkein Enterprises can be said to intend to have an extremely active fanbase, fanatics who talk about LoTR ceaselessly and name all their children and pets Frodo, I doubt it can be said that one cannot reasonably be expected to follow those intentions without violating the copyright. That would be different for, say, a mud which someone at Tolkein Enterprises specifically requested to be built.

***

On the other hand, even if it is technically illegal, it could still be moral, or at least not immoral. Just because a person didn't intend something doesn't mean they wouldn't wish it. Still, it would be advisable to seek more evidence that this is such a case. A secondary source's claim on something as ambiguous as "tolerance" really isn't all that much.

Exact same reason. Stealing IP without compensation has the potential to diminish the return the IP owner may achieve on his or her IP. For instance, Vivendi bought the rights to online Middle Earth games from the Tolkien Estate. I don't know the terms of the deal, but I'm sure they are paying millions of dollars and a huge percentage of gross royalties. If even ONE person doesn't pay them for MEO because of games like SoL, there's the harm right there.

Beyond even that though, I believe the IP owner has a fundamental right to determine how his or her IP will be used, so as to control the continuing development of or the diminishment of the value of that IP in the eyes of the public. What if a game like SoL decided that elves were sex-maniacs? At least SOME of the players are going to have their perception of Tolkien's work altered by that kind of premise and that deprives the IP holder of revenue just as surely as taking his car does.

Someone earlier quoted Raymond Feist on this issue. Mr. Feist said something to the following effect, "Pirating stories is no different than stealing my atm card and using it." His rationale is likely nearly identical to my own above.

All ethics are grey areas. I'm not precluding the possibility of honest disagreement with me on the moral side of the issue. What I mainly sense, however, is a sense of self-righteous entitlement on the side of the people defending Traithe; an attitude that "Tolkien muds deserve to be made, so I don't need to get permission first."

Anyway, see above for my rationale. It boils down to robbing control over the disposition of the IP from the IP holder.

--matt

-I- don't need to show legal grounds as I'm not accused of doing anything wrong. Traithe does, and he's already admitted what he's doing is illegal in his view, even if he qualified it with "technically illegal."

--matt

People don't earn cars in a vaccuum either. Nobody compensates society for their cars. We compensate only the people who previously claimed to own exclusive right to those cars. In any case, how would you go about compensating society for the money with which you are using to compensate society?

Moreover, assuming that everyone owns equal parts in society and that society owns equal parts in each piece of IP (due to the difficulty of predicting actual value added by society), then there is still the fact that the most obvious creator of the IP has more claim to that IP than anyone else in society, because they own their equal societal part plus however much value they added personally. As a communal norm, we do not recognize something as protectable IP until and unless, by communal norm, the creator is seen to have added a sufficient amount of value so as to overwhelm the value added by the rest of society. You would be pretty hard pressed to convince most people here that Tolkein didn't add overwhelmingly more value to his work than did the rest of society.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, we can assume that society gave the copyright holder no more benefits than the copyright holder gave every other individual of society in return simply by being a part of that society. Thus, the benefits added by society seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.

The ease with which information may be duplicated is not the same as the ease with which information may be created. Sure, any fool can duplicate Tolkein's work. The ease with which something can be duplicated is merely the ease with which IP can be taken away. Surely the fact that something is easy to steal doesn't by itself make it okay to steal. By taking it away, you aren't necessarily taking the means of duplicating it, but you are taking away the benefits of having been the IP's creator, leaving the creator stuck with an unfair portion of the costs of the creation.

Unifex:
Discussion about details of IP is impossible if people respond with questions like that.  It's like trying to have a discussion about the scope of the 5th amendment and having someone walk up and say "But do we need police and courts at all?".

Attacking a basic premise of law in most Western countries belongs in at least another thread, probably another forum.

Actual damages in this case would probably be much easier to substantiate than damages for violating the terms of a free codebase: unlike DIKU code, several companies have paid significant sums of money for the rights to make games based on Tolkien IP.

Stilton

If he did it in good faith he'd have obtained permission to do so. Instead, he sent a letter, didn't receive a response, and then just assumed "What the ####, I'll do it anyway."

--matt

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

I didn't reply because it's not relevant to this thread. Start a new one if you want .
--matt

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!

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

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

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.

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?