Kavir posts a whole lot of:
Yes, ok, but I think it's quite clear that you're being deliberately difficult at this point.

My inferences have been derived from the POSITIVE ACTIONS of others, yourself included (for example, your repeatedly hitting that post button makes me think that you intend me to see the results)

This is considerably different from the actual topic of discussion, which is attempting to draw inferences from INACTION.

Yes, ok, you're right, but it's a quibble/flame, not a relevant point. _I_ cause my browser to request a document, and the owner of the server has set up a policy on whether or not I get it.

I'm not calling anyone a liar. It's quite reasonable that the controller of the relevant IP has never even heard of this yet.

Two people sending an email is not proof that anyone, much less the holder of the rights to Tolkien material in video games, saw it. The guy might be on vacation, or might have an email problem. Or maybe he did reply and it's actually the reply that got eaten or bounced. email+1 week wait does not mean much when your request was about a matter they might well have to refer to the guy over in the legal department.

Whether he's heard of it or not, no permission has been granted as far as we know. Therefore, permission does not exist (yet).

Stilton

Actually, quoting reasonable amounts of a person's work for the purpose of critique - as well as education, and other, less relevant things - would fall under the Fair Use (so long as credit is explicitely given or reasonably implied, I believe).  

We are obviously critiquing each others' opinions and/or informing each other of our and others' opinions.  That is why it is okay to quote each other.

The existing themed muds, on the other hand, are obviously not for education or critique.  They are for entertainment.  And even if someone did publish a themed mud for the intended purpose of education or critique, they would likely fail by way of quoting more than would be considered a reasonable amount in the eyes of the law.

Lest someone point out the vast grey area that the Fair Use clause creates, it is important to note that there is plenty of or court precendent showing generally what types of things will count as Fair Use and what won't. Quoting people in discussions as we have been counts as Fair Use, plain and simple. Themed muds as the type we are discussing do not, and probably themed muds intentionally trying to comply with Fair Use will fail.

Brody wrote:
Well, since the law says that stealing IP worth more than $2500 (I think that's the rule) is, in fact, a criminal act, it does make him a criminal. Possibly I'm wrong about the law but that's what the FBI told me (even though they won't bother with cases under about $50,000 value).

And the courts have already ruled. That's why Traithe himself admitted what he's doing is illegal. There's nothing special or different about muds that would require case law any different from every other type of game out there.
--matt

You are incorrect in some details. A criminal act occurs when you steal IP worth more than X amount or more than X copies of something. (I'm unsure on the exact numbers). Tolkien's IP goes WAY over those boundaries. For instance, were you to steal 10 chapters from Lord of the Rings, printed it up and started giving it away on street corners, you could be prosecuted under criminal law.

Furthermore, and I willingly admit I can't quote you a court case on this, I'm nearly certain that inactivity can no longer cause a copyright holder to lose the copyright. You're quoting an outdated case, even though it's from 1989. And further, the core of New Era vs. Henry Holt case you quote (and, in fact, the core defence) was that the defendant was publishing a 'scholarly' biography of L. Ron Hubbard, and most legitimate academic use falls under fair use.

--matt

Whoa.. that's not what I'm "assuming".  I'm not assuming precedent.  I'm "assuming" the the builders granted permission under the Diku license, not that there is an implied license to areas.  There's a difference.  Nor is it an assumed or traditional mud community practice that content shipped with a codebase comes under the same license.  It happens to occur in only one branch of the mud tree.  You realise that LP mudlibs, MOO cores and Mush libs more often than not fall under different licenses.  Sometimes they are distributed separately but sometimes together under one or more licenses.  Then we have the Aber zone wars of old, some recent.

I agree with the argument with usenet posts and email, because quoting is reasonable, expected use. and common practice.   When author's publish a novel they expect review, comment and criticism, that is "fair use" that has been codified into law.   The email and usenet assumptions of "fair use" haven't been codified into law yet, however they probably will be at some time or be ipso facto supported via legal precedent anyway.

No I disagree, and I think Matt made a good point in a prior post where he stated you take community practices much further.  One can infer those practices from how literary works are treated across other media.  There is no assumption by movie makers they can use a an authors work in a movie, the assumption isn't made by cartoon makers, nor by television and radio producers.   If community practices are the guide, the SOURCE of the material is usually the guideline for practices.

The minute Tolkein up and died and his son aquired the rights they became his rights.  It's the copyright holder's intentions that are at issue, both ethically and legally.  The rest is a complete and total emotional argument based on painting his son as a real bad guy.  It's also about guessing the authors possible state  of mind and what Tolkein may or may not have decided if he were alive.  Not that I'm unsympathetic. I am a big fan too.  

Neither the Moria area nor Smaug would be copyright violations.  Why would you think they would be?

Understand that you are, with the above, in fact making the case for blatant copyright infringement.

It is because the Moria area (the Shire area too BTW) and Smaug make so little and trivial use or reference to Tolkein that they more than likely DONT infringe on Tolkein's copyright.

What does profit ... excuse me... legitimate exploitation of ones OWN IP like Achaea, TEC, Gemstone, MUD, MUD-II, Valhalla, DAOC, Ultima Online and the hundreds of other LEGIMIMATE businesses do have anything at all to do with IP theft!?!?!  

BTW, How much are they charging for a Diku-II license these days?

The moral equivocation of minor annoying issues and IP theft lessens the respect for IP.  IMO.

The thrust of my post was not directed at the misappropriation of IP per se but how it relates to the artistic rights of an author. Indeed copyrights relating to literature tend to have a dual purpose, to protect the integrity the author’s creative vision and to safeguard its commercial stock. I simply pointed out that the current owners of the LOR IP obviously have little regards for the literary integrity Tolkein’s works, but overwhelming regard for its commercial opportunities. Jokingly I referred to a hypothetical musical, and alas I seem to have been factually correct.

Tra-la-la

Oh where is Gandalf, where can he be?
Over the mountains and over the sea

Come see the hobbits dance and sing
Watch out its Bilbo, and he has a ring!

Enter river-dancing hobbits, stage left.
   
The point I was making was that I would not feel ethically indebted to the current IP owners in respect to artistic license. Indeed, It might be the case that a respectful interpretation of Tolkeins works might give the soul of the man a little glimmer of happiness, in contrast to the disreputable utilisation of his works as sanctioned by the current IP owners. And no I’m not a big fan of his works, as a piece of popular fiction it has a certain degree of merit, however, as a work of literature it is fairly ho hum and uninspiring. I am also aware that his works have themselves been charged with being derivatives of Wagners Ring Cycle.

Examples of Similarity

Hobbit,LOR then beneath it Wagners Ring Cycle

Alberich forges a Ring of Power
Sauron forges a Ring of Power

The Ring gives the bearer world domination
The Ring gives the bearer world domination

The Ring is cursed and betrays its bearer
The Ring is evil and betrays its bearer

Fafner kills brother Fasolt to get the Ring
Smeagol kills friend Deagol for the Ring

Fafner hides in a cave for centuries
Smeagol-Gollum hides in a cave for centuries

Siegfried inherits the shards of his father’s sword
Aragorn inherits the shards his fathers' sword

Brunnhilde gives up immortality for Siegfried
Arwen gives up immortality for Aragorn

Wotan plays "riddles" for the life of Mime
Gollum plays "riddles" for the life of Bilbo

.... and many more

I can’t find any ethical argument against employing his work in a manner in keeping with the developed of a textual world. Especially when those who should be better placed to make such an argument, having blatantly disregarded his wishes, have paved the way for claims of hypocrisy, should they attempt to do so. If someone wishes to take it upon themselves to create a MUD with a Tolkein theme then in my own personal opinion that’s all well and good. If someone wishes to laboriously create a game while constantly being aware that the plug could be pulled at any time then that doesn’t give me cause for concern, providing the work sympathises with Tolkeins books and is respectful towards them and their content.  In this respect I can’t find fault with SOI, they seem to be respecting Tolkeins creative vision in a manner that the man would be proud of.

This is not to say that using the works is permitted. I made a point of not referring to the legal rights of the owners. It goes without saying that possession is nine tenths of the law, and in the world of today whatever Tolkein wished for his works has long since been usurped beneath a tide of legal indemnity and commercial opportunism. Regardless of the authors intentions the law is still the law.
 
Should such MUDS be prohibited from advertising, where would such a move take the site? When all the games backed by fictional output have been removed, star wars, wheel of time, forgotten realms et al, I suspect their wont be a lot left. Except a few claiming to be original in theme while using racial elements like orcs and dwarves that are obviously derived from other sources, such as RP games, literature, or mythological accounts. At the end of the day it all boils down to the use of a few names that link the MUD with a popular text, and thereby an underlying association with a text that currently has main stream visibility.

Is this is crime worthy of a witch hunt, one worthy of directing input and effort away from other acts of nefarious conduct, acts that are more directly linked to the community, in respect to code theft for example. Shouldn’t this all be left to the individual authors and copyright owners? Don’t they have the means, time and finances to fight their own battles without the community having to tear itself apart over something that isn’t a major concern, well not to me at any rate.  As an outlet for an ethical crusade I personally couldn’t give a long-bottom-leaf smoke ring about it. The only final outcome that I can see is the enforced removal of many games from the lists and advertising banners, focussing attention on the few that remain, which would result in a net gain and advantage to original MUDS wishing to increase their player bases.

The bit about P2P list members being economical regarding the P2P element of their games was included because it crops up frequently from time to time and no one ever does anything about it. It was applicable to the thread, not because it deals with IP, but because the heading of the thread also alluded to having a just cause for the banning of MUDS. A tenuous link I will admit, but I had my spade and felt like having a dig.

Umm as a side note, as i noticed valhalla and diku2 in some posts.

I had the impression DIKUmud had their licence because the university FORCED them to have a non-commercial clause in it (being some kind of student project). Well if so, how come there's a commercial diku engine out there there for sale?

Did i misunderstand the reason for there non-commercial clause in the license?

You would have to ask them that, however the impression I always got was that it was some arrangement while they were students (perhaps something to do with not using educational resources for commercial purposes?) - certainly their University never seems to have claimed the copyright to DikuMUD, and as the copyright holders they are perfectly entitled to do whatever they wish with their own IP.  Furthermore, I am not even certain whether Diku II is actually based on the original Diku code, or just inspired by it.

I don't recall ever reading that the authors surrendered their copyrights to the work in question.  I assume like most authors they retain full rights to create derivatives under any terms they desire.

Has this really gone on for 17 pages? ####.

I apologize for extending it any further, but some thoughts keep pushing onward.

1) Copyright and all these issues of "fair use" we've been discussing apply, as best I can tell, to *specific works*. For example, I can't copy Carl Hiaasen's "Tourist Season" and sell it as my own. I can't publish the text in full on my website. We've been fond of making comparisons to Napster, where the problem is the trafficking of *complete* songs, and Vryce, where the problem is taking someone else's *complete* codebase and calling it his own. I can't take complete text from "The Hobbit" to use in my Tolkien MUSH. But copyright *doesn't* (as far as I've been able to discern) apply to ideas, concepts, place names or even necessarily *characters*. Characters and titles may certainly be trademarked - but that's a whole different ball of wax with a different set of rules and regulations. That's why Led Zeppelin can get away with using Mordor and Gollum in "Ramble On." And that's why a MUD codebase can be called Smaug. It's why a MUD can contain an area called the Shire. And it's why a MUD can call itself Shadows of Isildur. So long as Traithe is writing his own descriptions and *not* using the direct text by the author, he should be able to do so without being called a thief. He could not, from what I can tell, invite everyone to Shadow of Isildur to read chapter after chapter of Tolkien's books as they're posted.

A significant part of the problem of this entire argument is the assertion that opening a free MUD inspired by the collected works of an author is "publication of a derivative work." It *is* important and it *does* matter that there are no specific cases on point in regards to MUDs and copyright law, because we cannot state with any true authority on the pro or con side. MUDs *are* special - as with so many other quandaries created by the rise of the Internet, it's a lot more complicated than simply pointing to pre-Internet case law and saying "See!? It's illegal!"

As I've pointed out, as KaVir has pointed out, we've seen these sorts of games on the Internet for a long time. They've been written about in publications from Wired to Rolling Stone. They've been the topics of college research papers. They've been hashed out on Usenet for about a decade. They're listed at theonering.net - a site that Tolkien's staunchest intellectual property defenders probably visit occasionally. No one has seen fit to come crashing down on them, so far. (And Vivendi's hold on those MMORPG gaming rights aren't absolute, so I'm not sure it specifies that they control the ability to create non-graphical, not-so-profitable, not-so-massive RPGs inspired by Tolkien - nor are those rights even likely to last much longer, if I recall correctly, as Vivendi has been floundering financially and Universal has been eager to sell it off.)

The Internet is still a fairly new frontier and it's far too soon to start speaking in absolutes about this sort of thing. Nevertheless, I agree that we must honor the wishes of *any* author or IP holder who makes it known that they don't want these sorts of homages paid to them. Mercedes Lackey explains in her Q&A with fans that her concern isn't so much about true fans ripping her off as she is about someone suing her for stealing their ideas (true or not) or for using her realm to engage in virtual sex with minors. It's fairly hysterical sort of hand-wringing, but it *is* her property and if she doesn't want people using it for MUDs - and says so - then I can't imagine going against those wishes.

2) The whole big-number value Matt has put on the alleged violation by Traithe and other Tolkien MUD operators seems like hyperbole to me. If I base a MUD off the setting of The Lord of the Rings, the value of the book I'm basing it on isn't the net worth of the Tolkien estate or Harper Collins books. If I write an entire MUD that's just room after room described with the text from pages in "The Hobbit," what I'm ripping off is a book that runs about $5 retail in some stores. If I steal your car after writing that note to you, asking for but not receiving permission, then what I'm "stealing" is worth the current blue book value of the car - it's not the net worth of Ford Motor Company. In this case, by the way, Traithe hasn't stolen your car. It's still yours to drive. He's just made one himself using similar interior, because he really likes your sense of taste and style.

Here's some good reading on the subject.

<a href="http://www.whoosh.org/issue62/ecks2.html" target="_blank">FAN FICTION, NOVELS, COPYRIGHT, AND ETHICS
</a>

"Fair use" does apply to Led Zeppelin's two lines referring to Gollum and Mordor in the song Ramble on,  "fair use" does apply to naming a codebase "Smaug", and yes "fair use" does apply to the trivial half dozen lines of use in the Moria area.

However "fair use" does NOT apply to fan fiction or writing stories using the characters and settings in an author's works.  Consider Margeret Mitchell's "Gone with the Wind" and the coveted rights to produce its sequel awarded to one author by the estate.  Nor does the internet change the notion of "fair use" in respect to author's copyrights, specifically literary works.  You yourself undercut that argument when you suggest by implication that people can't and aren't distributing LOTR or the Hobbit wholesale on the internet.  The same is true for derivative works.

Shadow's of Isildor as far as I can tell is certainly fan fiction, derivative and not "fair use".  So is your Star Wars game as far as I can tell as everything I've read makes extensive use of characters and settings from the works.  I'm not suggesting rape-and-paste nor am I suggesting it's unoriginal.   I am suggesting it is as derivative as me writing a new Harry Potter novel or me writing a new OtherSpace novel.  

I am going to make some assumptions here so bear with me.  I don't have a dog in this hunt.  I am going to assume you don't have license from Lucas either.  If you do then no matter.

First the bad news, both your game and SoI are in fact copyright infringements of Lotr and SW.  Derivative works aka fan fiction.

Second the good news, both the Tolkein estate and Lucas Films tolerate non-commercial fan fiction.  

If they tolerate it, it's fine with me. :-)
So that's my final answer.

This thread has been interesting, and one of the more interesting things is, that after how many? - 16? – pages, there still isn’t any consensus about what is and isn’t ‘legal’. Different persons have their own layman’s interpretations of the law. Even different lawyers have different interpretations; that’s what they make their living from. It seems nowadays you can even get away with murder one, if you have the money to pay for a skilled enough lawyer.

Which brings me to my reason for jumping in at this late stage. It seems, given the fact that none of us are trained lawyers, the discussion has more or less turned into a circle, where the same arguments are hashed over and over again.

Personally I believe, that in cases like this it’s better to use the viewpoints of ethics and moral, rather than the Law. You generally don’t need a legal training to tell right from wrong - in fact most of us actually have a sort of built-in sense for this. There may be some people who actually CHOOSE to act unethically, for profit, power or other selfish reasons. But deep in their hearts even those people usually can tell ‘right’ from ‘wrong’ . Still, some cases may be tricky borderline, but is this case really one of those?

Just ask yourselves:
From an ethical point of view; Did Vryce do anything wrong when he ripped off the Diku code and claimed it to be his own invention?
I think most of us would answer YES to that question.

From an ethical point of view; did Thraithe do anything wrong when he opened Shadows of Isildur?
I don’t know about the rest of you guys, my own opinion is clear: No he didn’t

Which brings me to my last question:
From an ethical point of view; Was it right to single Thraithe out from all the other mudowners running Tolkien based muds, compare him to Vryce and publicly call him a thief in the same sentence?
I’ll leave that one to your judgement.

yes.

yes.

yes.

Molly:
Consensus has nothing to do with it.  The legal realities are pretty clear, and have been since the first page or so.  Ethics and morality are not equivalent to the law, but they're not entirely disjoint from it either.

Orion:
EDIT: This was actually a response to Point 1 of Brody's post above, not Orion's. /EDIT
Do you really think that copyright doesn't apply if you only lift parts of a work? Say, Kirk and Spock from Star Trek to use in your own novel?  News flash for you, but Tyche has already taken care of it.

KaVir:
From your last post, your position becomes clearer.  You aren't particularly interested in seeing copyright crusaders who aren't acting after specific statements by the authors that they disapprove of a particular use.  That's fine.  But you're letting your desire not to be shown up on the legal points you attempted to make in the beginning of this thread take you in directions you really don't want to be going.  Failure to issue cease/desist orders implying consent, for instance.

An example: Your continued bit about the discussion board.  It's quite clear for a number of reasons that the participants in a discussion board are in a considerably different position than what we're discussing.

Another straw man.  There's a PRAGMATIC realisation that if you publish something, someone somewhere is probably going to infringe (copy your CD, use your novel if it's good, etc.)  This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

What's important is whether or not the use of the material is a REASONABLE thing for the user to be doing.  By posting to a discussion board, most people would expect that the author is encouraging quoting and critique.  This is in addition to the fair use provisions Brody and others have mentioned.  By publishing a novel, the author is NOT inviting the general public to use his IP to do whatever they want.  

Should the DIKU users have anticipated that someone, somewhere would violate their license?  Of course.  Does that mean that such violation would be reasonable and legitimate use of the IP?  Of course not.

Straw man.  It's the action of posting to a discussion board that made me draw my conclusion, not the inaction you describe.  An ADDITIONAL action may help to clarify the posters intent, but claiming that this consitutes basing a decision on inaction is simply a cheap debating tactic.  I suspect that you understand this.  To borrow from Adams:  A big yellow bulldozer proceeding towards my house might make me lie down in the mud in front of it, but that doesn't mean that when I go to work in the morning without lying down in my garden I'm only doing it because of the inaction of a demolition company.

And because they didn't sue, that makes the use of their IP ok in your eyes. (I understand what you're THINKING now, which relates to someone else crusading for the IP owner's rights. But that's not what you're SAYING)

Hmm, haven't you been arguing for years that failure to enforce copyright protection doesn't mean that you lose the rights, or are giving permission for use?

BOTH of us are party to the custom and practice.  I suspect that you understand that publishing a novel is a quite different relationship between author and reader.

Do I have less sympathy for a victim who has the ability to defend themselves but doesn't (Tolkien Enterprises) than for someone who doesn't have a team of lawyers on retainer (a couple of college students releasing code)?  Yes.  Does that make fan-fiction a legal use of the material? No.

Stilton

Perhaps it's time we stop referring to them (the Diku group) as dirt poor helpless college students and instead assume they are in all likelyhood successful college graduates making a decent living.

The Tolkein estate apparently doesn't go after IP violators when it's not in their financial interest to do so.  That is perceived to be toleration by many, perhaps rightly so.  It's apparently not in their financial interest to do so.  The Tolkein estate has a much bigger problem as they'd have to start hundreds maybe thousands of such suits.  The Diku Group has a extraordinarily small number of copyright infringers.  I think my sympathies have shifted especially in regard to recent events; offers made to fund such a suit (not the first time BTW).

For me I guess it's like informing a neighbor that you've witnessed persons breaking into their house and taking their stuff, and that neighbor responds by ignoring your information and/or saying it's not worth their time.

So in regards to the Diku IP...

I believe it's reasonable to assume they tolerate it (despite claims to the contrary).
So I'm OK with it since the Diku people are OK with it.

Now before you flame me.  Don't think I endorse or encourage IP theft, nor that I wouldn't go after you if it was my stuff.  

The point is that I personally no longer care about people infringing on the Diku property.  I'll still continue to be a "Good Samaratin" though and drop you a line concerning your own property if God forfend you are stolen from but that'll be the end of it.

No, but I would be interested in where you got the notion that such a question should be asked.

That's great for Tyche, but why should I give one iota of care to it?

The only thing I can think of that makes you think that I hold such a position is my statement about Aracorn, and all that. Which, I made NO statement about the percentage used, only the manner in which it is used, which would be covered under fair use as parody.

Now, you can continue your argument as you like, I've made my position quite clear. Really would like to know where the amount used got brought up in relation to me, though, when I never even made an argument about that.

Oh well.

Orion:
my apologies, you are totally correct about my reply not being properly directed. It was text from point 1 of Brody's post of June 06 2003,11:05 that I was incorrectly attributing to you and responding to. I'd had to do some copy/paste to keep everything available and screwed it up.

Tyche:
That's probably true now. I'm not sure if it was when the first few blatant infringers began. At this point, yes, I agree with you, it's pretty much water under the bridge unless they want to do something. I don't condone the behavior, but it's been what, a decade?

There are more important things to be doing. Like coding. The best way to attack Medievia would be to release a codebase that obsoletes them.


Stilton

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.

You've no idea how much money was even offered. Chances are it was such a pitiful amount that a better analogy would be: It's like informing a neighbor that you've witnessed the mafia breaking into their house and taking their stuff, and so you offer them your baseball bat so that they can go and take it back. The neighbor declines your offer, so you assume they didn't care.

The Diku team are not okay with it, and have said so publically. If the author says they don't want their work used in a certain way, then fair enough. The issues I have are with people like The_logos attacking muds without even knowing what the authors wishes are - as I pointed out earlier, he initially started flaming WoT muds, until those one of those muds pointed out scanned letter from Robert Jordan which granted permission.

A good example of a straw man argument would be attempting to use posting to a message board as an example in a discussion involving an entirely different situation.  Then tearing down a claim about author consent by using that situation to attack statements made about an entirely different situation.  Sound familiar?

There have been quite a few more; that's just an obvious example.  I'm not erecting a straw man myself here; I'm just answering your charge that I don't know what they are ;)

Seeing a post on a message board is effectively seeing consent to respond and use text from it for that purpose from the person who posted it, barring later charges that the post was stolen material inappropriately posted. No, I don't require a notarized statement that the post is really from you ino order to believe it (if the stakes were higher, the proof would have to be higher).

As I've already admitted, that statement was perhaps broader than it should have been (granted, the admission wasn't particularly magnanimous since I was feeling like the victim of a straw-man at the time).  It was said with application to situations in which the various parties involved haven't been in a clear relationship regarding the use of the writing by others (posting to a message board screams "read me. critique me. reply to me".  I was talking about something like a published book. Granted, it screams "review me", but it doesn't scream "create extended derivative works based on me.)  In the same vein, I wouldn't attempt to turn our discussion into "KaVir vs Stilton: The Musical" without permission ;)

So, "Which is the very point I've been trying to convince you of. "  Presumably then (since the point you're trying to convince me of involves, per your direct statement above, the reasonable use of material in a given situation), you believe that Traithe's use of the material is acceptable to a reasonable person?  Because I've been quite clear that I don't think it is, I can't imagine anything else you'd be trying to convince me of with regards to it.

Or do you in fact agree with me in the case we're discussing, and just take exception to the some of the phrasing I've used like the one above about failure to issue cease/desist orders and consent?

Then I'm confused.  I thought that one of the buttresses of your position was the fact that Tolkien Enterprises hasn't taken any legal action, or even made public statements about approving or disapproving.

At this point, I'm not even sure if we have any factual disagreements.  I'm not inclined to continue the sparring if it's entirely personal.  We are simply not managing to communicate effectively, and I think the facts are clear enough at this point.

Stilton

No, it wouldn't. A straw man (aka "Fallacy Of Extension") is when you attack an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position. As it was, I gave counterpoint examples which dealt with similar situations - I did not claim you made those examples yourself.

Exactly. And that is reasonable enough - but it also goes to show that even you believe, under some situations, that it is reasonable to assume you can use it. The difference here is where the line is drawn. The above is still a copyright infringement, but it's one which few people claim is unacceptable.

The point I've been trying to make is that there is no "black and white", only shades of gray, and that many people would also consider the usage in Traithe's example to be reasonable. Like copying postings, it is still copyright infringement - but it is nowhere near in the same league as Vryce, which was what the original poster seemed to be claiming. Remember, the original claim of this thread was the it was inconsistent to ignore muds like Traithe's while banning Medievia - and that is the claim I have been disputing.

It's a combination of many things, but my arguments have always revolved around the wishes of the copyright holder. That is why I took the side I did during the IMC2 debates. In this case it is clear that the Tolkien copyright holders know that their work is being used for muds, but have obviously chosen to turn a blind eye to it. Since fan fiction has both positive and negative aspects for copyright holders, some authors actively encourage it while others strongly discourage it. A few, like Tolkien, appear to tolerate it, but I don't think it's up to us to try and second-guess what it is they really want until such time as they make their wishes clear - because by banning muds, you may well be going against their wishes.

KaVir writes:
A straw man doesn't necessarily involve exaggeration or caricature; it's a fairly broad term. It's when you when you pick an argument to defeat other than the one that your opponent actually made. This may involve distorting your opponents argument as you describe, or it may be substituting another that sounds close enough but is sufficiently different as to lead to a different conclusion.


or


for instance. I have seen a few definitions similar to yours, but believe them to be a mistake of incorporating the Slippery Slope and/or reductio ad absurdem, the key of both of those being extension/caricature. The Straw Man's key element is misdirection or bait and switch, ie "This is what you said, but I'll respond to that instead."

I will need to look that up: whether Fair Use is technically "no, I'm not infringing because this is acceptable" or "yes, I'm infringing on your rights, but there's no way for you to enforce them against me in this case."

I do believe that limited rights to use material can be given without a signed contract, if that's what you mean. Everything is generally shades of gray, granted, but that doesn't mean that decisions can't be clearcut in the majority of cases.

I don't think anyone has equated Traithe and Vryce. Many of the posters have gone out of their way to contrast the two. They WERE lumped into the same broad category of copyright infringers, with associated loaded words ("thief", etc.) But the people leaning towards the pro-fanfiction side of the fence haven't simply asked for the loaded words to be dropped; the main discussion has revolved around the acts themselves.

I don't think the argument that tolerating the use of IP without permission could be generally harmful to the community can be dismissed out of hand. DIKU comes with a license. Every copy of LOTR comes with a license. It's perfectly reasonable for someone to ask why the community aggressively defends the DIKU license but not the LOTR license.

I don't necessarily think that you personally are being inconsistent in the cases you pick to crusade on: you consistently pick cases where the IP owner's stated wishes are being violated, even if those wishes were ineffectively codified into the written license (the famous "profit" clause applied to "just for expenses" donations, the quite legal compensation of coders to work on DIKU, etc.)

Now, if you were to come out and say (as I thought you had in your initial summary of Traithe's arguments) that violating the written license was actually acceptable for LOTR but not DIKU, then that would be inconsistent (unless you simply apply the "author's level of public displeasure" criterion totally across the board, in which case I would think that you're wrong but not inconsistent).

Stilton

First off, I find it amusing that the owner of a MUD who grants benefits to those who has deeper pockets actually has the gall to post here.

Secondly, those of you who are posting negatively about the admin of SoI, I offer this: You're either not from the USA (and in this case, you're excused) or you forget something that the USA holds dear (in this case, you disgust me). We're innocent until proven guilty. The owner of SoI made the attempt to comply with the 'owner' of the IP you're claiming was stolen. He's stated he's going to make more of an attempt, so why are you whining here?

In conclusion, none of you have the right to attack him for this. It was not your property that was 'stolen'. Nothing has been 'stolen' yet, according to the facts. It amazes me at what lengths one would go to get their ego inflated and their pleasure felt.

What a community.

-- X

Xorith:
*cough*TROLL*cough*

So far as I know, said individual has not been accused of doing anything unethical, unless you consider running a successful business unethical.

Not in civil cases, which this quite probably would be.  And what more proof of "guilt" could you possibly want than the offender openly advertising what he's doing? Note that I'm using guilt in the sense of "is he doing it", not "is it wrong", which is what the thread is about. Hence the quotes.

What does that variable store? Your trolling stat?

Stilton

No, it's fairly specific, although you can argue symantics if you wish - but your link provides pretty much the same explanation as mine. Either way, the example you cited for me was not a straw man.

It's neither - it's a "yes, I'm infringing on your copyright, but I think I can get away with it as 'fair use'". Fair use is so vague in definition that you can never automatically assume something is or isn't fair use - it's up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis (although in some cases the chances are so weighed one way or another that you can make a pretty good guess). See here:

Full rights to use the material can be given without a signed contract. It's only exclusive rights, or an actual transfer of copyright, which requires a signature. Furthermore, it is possible to give limit rights even without any form of contract (aka "an implicit license"). AFAIK such licenses are unlikely to be the case in the situation, however.

There are very few clear-cut cases, particularly when you start talking about things like "fair use".

You may want to re-read the thread then - the_logos has compared Traithe to Vryce right from the beginning, then attacked myself and others for not treating his mud in the same way as Medievia. At one point the_logos even suggested that Traithe was worse than Vryce, although I cannot seem to find the post any more (presumably the offending comment was edited out).

But it's the author of the work who is tolerating it! If the author of a work tolerates it being used in a certain way, why should we enforce it differently?

I have never seen a the LOTR licence. Are you sure it's not a copyright notice?

And the reason has been given.

No, that is a part of criminal law. Copyright infringement law is primarily a civil law, whereby the jury must believe that there is more than a 50% probability that the defendant was negligent in causing the plaintiff's injury.

I'd be interested if you knew the origin of the term. Otherwise, common learned usage doesn't seem to require extension or caricature so I'm inclined to disagree with you.

As far as the case I cited from your messages, well, evidently you believe that message board examples are a valid illustration of your point while I don't.

My question referred to the situation once you know it's fair use. Once a court rules in a particular case, or you're operating under a precedent, are you infringing but immune from prosecution, or are you not infringing because the use is reasonable?

You can state pretty definitely that discussing LOTR in a classroom is probably ok, as is publishing a typical review in a periodical. There ARE areas that are quite firmly inside fair use.

Sorry, I was referring to my personal credibility thresholds, not the maximimum legal extents of what you can do.

There are actually many clear-cut cases: open up the New York Times review section sometime. Or attend a class on literature. Provided the professors don't go out of their way to test the limits of the law, no sane person would claim that academic study of Catcher in the Rye is not fair use. (just to pick an example of recent literature without complicated ownership transfers going on)

Writing a review of LOTR is fair use. Creating an extended derivative work is not, probably unless parody.

Yes, he used loaded language to illustrate his point (most likely, because that's the way DIKU offenders are characterized). And, the point is a reasonable one as far as his direct point, dissociating for a moment the emotional baggage associated with the terms used. He was apparently throwing your own terms back at you (wide you, not personal you).

After 10 years, the Diku/Merc authors have done NOTHING to stop Vryce. Seems like tolerating it to me. I'm not suggesting that the alleged practices should be accepted as reasonable or respectable, of course.

It seems to me (IANAL) that the Diku/Merc positon might be weaker than the Tolkien one as far as toleration: making noise for a decade without doing anything is a much clearer announcement that you know about the infringement but don't intend to do anything than silence is.

Yes, I'm referring to the copyright notice, which clearly lets you know that the IP owner isn't giving out any rights but those normally associated with buying a book.

And why do you expect the persons who continue to ask it to be any less persistent than yourself when you object to something you regard as in unethical or illegal practice?


Stilton

I know it was at least $1000.  And you are ignoring the trivial act of sending a DMCA request.  But no I was going for a different point with that analogy, while yours with the "mafia" goes in the opposite direction, towards characterizing the Diku group as fearful or helpless.  My point is the Diku group is neither helpless nor poor nor fearful, and I've seen no evidence to sustain that rather outdated impression.  I'd characterize them as apathetic about their property currently.  And apparently more tolerant than the Tolkien group that actually does go after commercial violators while ignoring non-commercial violators.

I think it's fair to raise other questions.

Does their (the Diku group) failure or unwillingness to enforce their license hurt the rest of us releasing software under license?  

Does it not establish the precedent or raise the perception that IP violators in the mud community can get away with it, emboldening them to violate our own licenses?

My thoughts are yes it does, as it leaves the same thugs out there "on the street" so to speak.  So screw the Diku group as they obviously neither want nor care for the help offered in defending their IP.

Okay, now you're confusing me. You asked what the purpose of my posting was, and I explained that it was because I felt Vryce and Traithe were completely different scenarios. You then responded with "I don't think anyone has equated Traithe and Vryce". When I point out that that's exactly what the original poster repeatedly did, you respond "the point is a reasonable one as far as his direct point". Well, no, it isn't - and that's the point I've been arguing for the last 19 pages of posts.

No, it is not, because they have made their position - their wishes - clear on the matter.

Then please refer to it as such. A copyright notice has absolutely nothing to do with copyright licenses.

Because they are trying to force their own interpretation of someone else's legal wishes onto me, and then attacking me for not defending their own interpretation of what is or isn't "reasonable". It also runs very close to the Medievia sock-puppet argument of "lots of people steal mp3s, so should attack them as well, otherwise you're being a hypocrite".

If the_logos, or you, or anyone else wishes to defend other aspects of copyright which you feel are important, then go for it. But I do not consider "fan fiction" - when the author knows about it and hasn't said a word about it - to be something to be worry about; it is not even remotely close to what Vryce has done. So you deal with what bothers you, and I will deal with what bothers me.

As far as what was said literaly, you are entirely correct about Logos, though it would be a mistake to tar the other people on the same side of the fence (Tyche et al) with the same brush, either explicitly (as you have not done), or implicitly by not addressing their concerns and statements separately (there have been several good restatements by various people). I am quite sure that Logos is aware of the distinctions between IP infringer and "thief", and was having a bit of fun tweaking some tails by applying the same terms that some people misuse to describe Vryce to Traithe.

The actual suggestion for action was fairly neutral in language: you infringe IP, you don't get listed/tolerated.

How does your statement apply to mine? They have done nothing substantive about Vryce. It's now ten years later. If what you want is me to amend my phrase to be "have done NOTHING to stop Vryce but complain in public forums", consider it so amended.

Yes, I'm sympathetic to their cause. But 10 years later, it's time to move on.

Ok. It does seem to clarify intent when they go to the trouble to print more than a name and a date ("All Rights Reserved", etc)

I have stated that I think you're consistent in your choice of causes to actively campaign for. If you feel that someone is demanding that you personally do something, please complain to someone else, because it ain't me.

If, on the other hand, you are coming out and saying that you think Traithe's mud is defensible fanfiction and oppose the activism of others on those grounds, then you've got a slight legal difficulty: you're wrong.

I haven't asked you to deal with anything.

Stilton

Well nontheless i agree that muds that violate copyrights should not be listed on the front pages of the mud community. Both violating mud licenses like medievia and vryce which are in fact still listed on the mudconnector, which is bull****, and muds that use material they have not gotten permission to use like tolkien or star wars games.

Yet in your mud listing on kyndig.com:



You state:

"The world is somewhat influenced by Tolkien and other fantasy worlds, with elves and halflings, but most is totally original."

Does that mean you think it's okay to use some - but not too much - of Tolkien's work? Or are you suggesting your own mud be banned as well? Or are you suggesting that muds be banned based on your interpretation of what a "reasonable" amount of usage is?

Kavir, Can you not see the difference between vryce, shadows of isildur and our post at TMC?

Or is is just your continual quest to bad mouth our game without being able to back it up?

I mean that it is OK to build a world SIMILAR to tolkien, without using any copyright material from it. Like for example calling people gandalf, frodo or making a monster called balrog is "stealing" his work, while building a world on low-fantasy and elves and dwarves are not. Creating a world completely based on tolkien or star wars or whatever is clearly unauthorized use of the authors work.

Also there is a big difference in an advertisement made to attract search hits in a search engine and "stealing" copyrighted work. Just because we write that our game is similar to some famous works in an advertisement does not mean we steal their copyrighted material, in any way.

We are not using a "reasonable" amount of tolkiens work, we are using NONE of tolkiens work. It is a big difference. Muds that use ANY of tolkiens work should be banned, muds that do not use it should not be banned. I know you can see the difference, you are just on your everlasting quest to slam our LEGITIMATE game (in contrary to medievia and SoI), which you seem to enjoy even more than actually going after games that have done something wrong.

I guess it is because we are creating a commercial game on the side, and it does not fit your glorious view where every mud admin spends half their life working for free on some ****ty diku derivate. Ohh and of course they should already have a "well-paid" work and the muds should just be a hobby like for yourself as you have said in the past, anything else is just wrong in your opinion, and you have to keep slam them. Well some people are maybe not as well paid as yourself and maybe they can see a future forthemselves with making a game from scratch commercial, ever thought about that?

Every post i make, anywhere, you have to drag up some crap accusations about our game without being able to back it up. Please try to get some facts straight before you open your mouth. Clean it up, there is a cheesy smell coming from it.

If our mud is using copyrighted material, sure it should be banned. However it is not, end of discussion. Can you leave it out now?

Games should not be banned on what I think is reasonable or what YOU think is reasonable, it should be a clear line.

If you violate the mud's license or use copyrighted material without the authors consent, it should be banned off the list.

Of course I can, that's the point I've been making throughout this thread - that there are many shades of gray. Someone once told me that an alcoholic is someone who drinks more than their doctor. It strikes me that some people here are more than happy to apply the same concept to copyright infringement, but it is hardly a fair rule for enforcement.

Right - and for all we know, Traithe may have done just that. It is possible to create fan fiction without using copyrighted work - particularly as the law does not clearly define how copyright extends to many concepts (such as fictitious characters, worlds, histories, etc). It is not as clear-cut as something like modifying mud source code (which would be more comparible to taking a copy of LOTR and rewriting large chunks of the story).

Actually that's a trademark issue, which is something completely different.

However Tyche seems to be of the opinion that it is okay to use one or two areas based on LOTR. Would you agree with him on that, or not? Two of the areas that spring instantly to mind are Moria and the Shire, which come as stock.

However it could be argued that you are profiting from their work, should you continue to use the same strategy for your commercial mud. Furthermore, I very much doubt that a LOTR mud would "steal" any copyrighted material - at least, I don't recall ever seeing any muds which have copied chunks of text from a book. What you're probably referring to is the creation of unauthorised derivative works, which may or may not occur, depending on what exactly is used from the book.

You have halflings, which are clearly based on Tolkien's "hobbits". You also have "drow", which are from AD&D. I've no doubt that I could find other references if I looked.

Well that wipes out most muds then - and that assumes you're only talking about Tolkien's work.

Right! Exactly! And that is one of the major points I have made right from the beginning - the LOTR scenario is not a clear line.

Hmmm, actually... Isn't most AD&D stuff related to nearly identical to Tolkien's works? Stuff like mages, elves, halflings/hobbits, area names, etcetera? Even if it isn't related to Tolkien's works and just to AD&D, then you've got to remember AD&D is also owned by a company called Wizards of the Coast. For example, all the AD&D manuals are copyrighted to WotC.

Really kinda disturbing; even our fantasy has been copyrighted these days...

I would not agree that it is okay to use zones based on any author's work, that has not given permission to use it.

Actually we have "halfers" (small in size but other than that not much common with hobbits) and "Drazeki" elves (dark elves) that live in our "blackwoods". Not at all similar to drows.

Well anyways what i mean is that there is a large difference with creating your own theme and "borrowing" ideas from other themes, than to totally rip off some author and create your whole game off their work even naming your game with their trademarks.

It is easy to see which games are using "trademark" or "copyrighted" material without permission, and in my opinion such muds should be banned from the mud community pages as well as any muds violating mud licenses...

And just as big a violation too, I believe.
I certainly wouldn't and were there a court case, neither would the court. Those are blatant infringements.

That's not an argument against banning them. That's just the consequences of following through on a policy of stopping infringement. If most muds infringe on someone else's copyright or trademark, then most muds are being run by IP thieves.

--matt, who frequently wonders if it's a lack of imagination or a lack of ethics that causes so many mud administrators to rip off other people's IP and who continue to do so after they are made aware of the dodginess of the practice.

Actually, I see what Traithe is doing as worse than what Vryce is doing in one way and not as bad in another way. Overall I'm quite happy to label them both thieves.

Vyrce is worse because of his blatant and continuing disregard even though the DIKU authors have supposedly stated they wish him not to continue violating their IP's license. On the other hand, while it's extremely grating to see Medievia getting away with it, it's not hurting the license holders in any way so it's rather debatable how much harm to them he's causing (whether or not he's causing other people not to release codebases is a bit irrelevant to me as the only people who can be harmed in any way I care about by an IP violation is the IP holder.)

Traithe is worse because he CAN cause real harm. Whereas the DIKU people use the DIKU IP for no gain of their own and thus cannot suffer loss, the Tolkien people clearly use their IP for gain and thus can suffer real loss by Traithe's actions. I'm not interested in spurious arguments about how you fan fiction helps the author as that's not your determination to make. If the IP holder wanted help, he'd let you know.

So, I see it in two ways and in the balance I see Traithe's actions as worse than Vryce's, albeit with better intentions, so I'm willing to simply equate the two as thieves.

--matt

Heh - I've been trying to bite my tongue for the last -140- posts or so, but enough is really enough.

Thank you, Your Honor.

Ahem.

AHEM.

So, really, after 20 pages, what are we left with, in terms of a legal argument against my position?

1. There is no clear legal precedent for this particular case. I was apparently in fact wrong in making my earlier admission that you were "technically" right - though I'm quite sure (if your exceedingly confident tone is any indication - surely you wouldn't make such adamant declarations without qualifications to do so?) that you possess a juris doctorate, Logos, this would be a case for a judge and a group of attorneys well-versed in the relevant law to decide.

2. The IP holder, Tolkien Enterprises, is clearly uninterested in pursuing action - even a written response or acknowledgement - to any fanfiction/derivative work authors/MUD administrators.

3. Such derivative works have existed publicly for 20-30 years.

Ergo: while I won't say the legal argument lacks validity, because it clearly does not, I will state that it is far from the cut-and-dry matter your rather inflammatory remarks portray it as.

Furthermore - as you yourself have stated that you don't burden yourself to follow the law simply because it is the law, I find it fairly ironic that you're on a witch-hunt because someone else may or may not be in violation of a civil statute.

Regarding the ethical arguments against my position: unless I'm mistaken, you're essentially arguing that because my MUD (or the dozens of other Tolkien-based MUDs out there - not even counting the likely hundreds of other derivative work MUDs) has the potential of causing financial damage to Tolkien Enterprises, I am in the wrong.

I believe you yourself stated that we are in no position to judge the financial results of our actions on the assets of an IP holder. I'm certainly not going to make the assertion that my MUD will increase their profits - though I have a strong suspicion there's some validity to that statement - but neither can you make the assertion that it causes them direct financial damage. Since you can't make this statement, most of that copyright infringement law that has been brought up might not even apply - I'm no lawyer, but I believe it refers to ACTUAL damages, not POTENTIAL damages. Argued ethically: if your action has the potential to harm someone, but you have seen no evidence whatsoever that it actually does so and hence continue doing it - are you acting immorally and/or irresponsibly? That seems entirely unreasonable to me.

In closing, as I don't think I'm going to allow myself the indulgence of getting involved in this debate yet again - my MUD will continue to operate up until the day I receive a letter, an email, a telephone call, or a smoke signal from Tolkien Enterprises or another associated group kindly asking me to shut it down. At that point, I will do so, and happily. Until then, however, you may feel free to hurl whatever baseless accusations and nomenclatures at me that you like - you aren't Tolkien Enterprises, nor are you a judge, and even your ethical arguments are entirely unconvincing.

Perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere.


-T., who also avoids arguing with religious zealots for precisely this reason.

I claimed no such thing.  I stated specifically that Moria doesn't violate Tolkein's copyright.  

a reference to a non existent balrog, orcs, and the name moria.  Read the area.

As to my BTW on the Shire, that was from memory.  I recalled that it made no references to hobbits at all and characters in the books.  However after DLing it and reading I find it does reference a number of place names, Shire, Bree Bywater road as well as Gamgee.  Quite possibly it could be.

Moria definately not copyright infringement.  Led Zeppilin's two lines in Ramble On make more references to Tolkien than the area Moria does.  

My statements on LOTR areas was definately not GENERIC though.

If as you suggest there is a huge wide grey area in regard to literature (and I contend there isn't),  then there's a hug wide grey area in regard to source code.  You cannot argue the one without weakening and ripping the rug out on your argument on the other.

If you want another example mud that does infringe on copyright other than SoI, then go check out Mirkwood.

I don't see a point in removing a mud from top mud sites until the copywrite owner asks for it, or there is fact leading to the point that the copywrite owner has requested the mud to remove their copywrited information.

There are a hundred different versions of MU*s, how many people know the legalities of using LambdaMOO?

And there are a thousand genres out there; do we all know the requirements of White Wolf, or Star Wars, Star Trek, Wheel of Time, Mortal Kombat, Neuromancer, John Brunner, Dragonball, Dragonball Z, Trigun, Mad Max, Robotech, Street Fighter, Palladium, D&D, Predator, AD&D, Tolkien and Aliens?

The point I am making is this:

I don't care to discuss ethics; we may as well discuss abortion or the Iraq War.

If you really want to find a solution, you need to find a goal that can actually be achieved.

So you have two options:

(1) Ensure every mud is within limits
--------------------------------------------------
Step 1:
Go through every mud in TMS and MudConnector and figure out what theme they are using, this would mean you would have to log into the game and document the various possible copywrite infringements.

Step 2:
Write up a formal document to that mud about its usage of copywrite, list the possible sources that they may be infringing like this:

-------------
To whom it may concern,

We have noticed that the following areas of your mud may be conflicting with copywrited materials, please submit to us approval from the following companies:

Bantam Books
ColorDeck, Zeiss Ikon Lowlight Eyes and Count Zero. These items have been found to be from the Neuromancer trilogy

FUNimation
Goku, Gohan, Vegetta, Frieza. These items have been found to be from the DragonBall Z animated series.

Twentieth Century Fox
Ripley, Zenomorph. These items have been found to be from the movies Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection

Please submit these documents to us, in the interim your site will be removed from TopMudSites, if you have any questions please contact us at

Regards,

Top Mud Sites
-------------

Step 3:
Now, you remove that mud from TMS and wait for the person to submit these documents.


(2) Ensure that all requested muds are removed
--------------------------------------------------
Step 1:
Create a section on TMS that has contact information for copywrite / license owners wanting a mud removed can contact the owner

Step 2:
Once they have contacted TMS with enough information remove the mud and send a notice to that mud that copywrite Owner X has requested their mud be removed

-----------------------

Now seriously, those are your options. I really don't want to get into ethics, I have my ethical views of the matter but that isn't the point right now. The point is not only is it ethical, but what is the best solution to the problem?

If you don't agree then I suggest posting better system on how the owner of TMS can successfully deal with the problem at hand.

*shrug*

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.