Why is it that Medieiva is banned from this site, whereas Shadows of Isildur is actually permitted to advertise here? They're both run by thieves and it seems wholly unfair to punish one instance of IP theft and not another.

--matt

I'm sure that the owner of SoI will more eloquently defend himself, but I'll just toss in some information in case you're unaware. This was posted on mudconnector by Traithe when the topic came up in the past:


How is the owner of SoI a "thief"?

He posted this, complete with links, on the mudconnector:
I imagine he'll be happy to defend himself again here, though. Also, he doesn't profit from his game, unlike Medeivia.

Once again, Triathe would probably be better off defending his actions, as I don't really care one way or the other (other than to have a sort of visceral abreaction to the nastiness of your post toward a guy that seems well-meaning, talented, and good-intentioned).

My understanding was that Triathe was going to meet, in person, with the folks at some Tolkien office in California in order to obtain express permission.

I believe, at heart, the difference between Traithe and Vryce is that Traithe is actually attempting to work with the holders of the copyrights. Vryce repeatedly shows he has no desire to do so. I imagine that if Traithe is asked to take down SoI by the Tolkien estates, he will do so. Vryce, obviously, won't.

Exactly. It makes me wonder if logos has a personal beef against Traithe?

It fairly boggles my mind, as Traithe has been an exemplary member of the RPI community at least. He actually advertises all the other main RPIs on his mud's website and basically just seems to be a genuinely nice guy. Note that I actually admin on another RPI and don't play SoI, so I don't really have much stake in this other than to wonder why the_logos is singling SoI out.

I didn't intend to make Shadows of Isildur a special case. I have an equal problem with all ripped off IP. I was just using them as an example as I 've seen the banners here recently.

--matt

Still, I question how this counts as "ripped off intellectual property." He's not claiming to have created middle earth. He's not claiming to have invented the term "Hobbits." He's giving credit where it's due, and he's not charging people for the experience of sharing his affinity for Tolkien.

Show me the legal violation here. That's all I'm saying.

I don't even know who the guy is.

Yeah...I'm not sure what being a nice guy has to do with it.

--matt

Um...how about just starting with the name itself, "Shadows of Isildur." Or the fact that he's got "Minas Morgul" in the game.

Whether he claimed to invent the material or not isn't relevant.

--matt

Explain to me, in simple legal terms, how his paying to advertise for a free game inspired by the works of Tolkien, that in no way drains money from the Tolkien estate, is a rip-off of intellectual property?

Let's say I run a middle earth tabletop game in a coffee shop in town. I go down to Kinko's and make fliers to post on the gaming shop bulletin board. The flier says "Immerse yourself in Isengard!" And then proceeds to give basic information about the gaming sessions and the times when those sessions are held, plus directions to the coffee shop. Now, the gaming sessions are absolutely free - of course, you might want to go buy some Tolkien roleplaying materials or Tolkien's books to learn more about it (thus actually HELPING the estate of J.R.R. Tolkien and the corporations that have licensing agreements to publish such materials). Would it then be a violation of intellectual property rights to have run these games, at my own expense, and advertised to get people to come play?

I am still unsure where your footing is for all of this.

There exist hundreds of MUDs based off of exisiting material. To name the ones listed over at MudConnector:

Roger Zelazny's Amber series
Babylon 5
Diablo
Dragonball
William Gibson's Cyberpunk
DragonLance
Dungeons and Dragons
Final Fantasy/Phantasy Star
Forgotten Realms
Harry Potter
Magic: The Gathering
Pern
Pokemon
Shadowrun
Star Trek
Star Wars
Terry Goodkind's Sword of Truth series
Tolkien
Transformers
Ultima
Warhammer
Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time series
World of Darkness
X-Files

By your definition, all of these MUDs are intellectual property thieves, and should all be banned.

Heh, it's not my definition of intellectual property. It's the definition of the laws of most western countries.

And yes, all those should be banned if the owners of the IP haven't given permission. I use Tolkien as an example largely because they are famous for being extremely forceful about their IP rights. For instance, the lawsuit against the neighborhood kid's birthday party clown in Long Island who called himself "Gandalf."

--matt

Not sure about the status of that frivolous lawsuit so far, but Gandalf the Wizard Clown is still in business:

And HE makes money off it. Unlike the purveyor of Shadows of Isildur.

His paying to advertise is only an extension of his already existing violations. I just personally would prefer it if leading mud sites didn't take money from license violators.

I am a little baffled that some of you have such a difficult time understanding the concept of intellectual property. Whether you're providing something for free or charging for it is legally irrelevant. Whether you think the Tolkien estate might make money because of license violations is irrelevant. Of course, if the Tolkien estate (or perhaps Vivendi in this case, as given that Middle Earth Online is currently being developed by Turbine under contract with Vivendi, it's likely that all online massively multiplayer rights were sold or licensed to Vivendi) doesn't care, then I don't care, but as far as I can tell, they've never told the Shadows of isildur fellow that they don't mind.

However, if they do object there's no question that what Shadows of Isildur and all the other Tolkien muds are doing is simple and blatant IP theft. I'm going to give Tolkien Enterprises a call on Monday to see what they have to say. Then, I'll either shut up and apologize to anyone I've offended over this issue or do my best to point them to everyone who is abusing or stealing their IP.

--matt

You are certainly well within your rights to do that, but I think there's a line between homage and a rip-off of intellectual property - a line that, in my opinion, hasn't been crossed by Shadows of Isildur or any other free-to-the-public game based on any established theme. If you need a crusade, by all means, the windmills are that way. But it seems ill-conceived, no matter how well-intentioned.

Gandalf the Wizard Clown is now using that name under license from Tolkien Enterprises. I have no idea what the terms of that license are, but the point is that he -actually got permission-. If muds like Shadows of Isildur can say the same thing, then obviously I have no issue with them. So far no one has shown me any evidence that any of them are doing anything but using the IP without license.

(And again, whether you charge money or not isn't legally relevant.)

--matt

Also, while you're on this warpath against intellectual property theft in MU*-land, you might as well load your cannons for bear against all fan clubs/sites that don't ask permission, as well as Yahoo newsgroups and any ISP that allows play-by-email games set in these established realms.

My point: Be careful about that slippery slope. I understand concerns about people stealing intellectual property for personal profit - I'd be right there with you in that argument. Shadows of Isildur appears to be an homage - a celebration of the world Tolkien created. It's not a commercial enterprise like the MMORPGs are going to be. It's little more than a large, free-to-play tabletop game linked together by computers - and unless you plan to go running around like the cardinal in the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition sketch, raiding tabletop games like some 'net savvy Eliot Ness, you're really taking on a crusade that won't be worth the time or energy you'd be better off devoting to your own games.

"Paying homage" doesn't fall under fair use. There's no line between "homage" and "theft". They're the same thing. Here's the law:



Notice that the owner of copyrighted property has the -exclusive- right to produce derivative works, to perform the copyrighted material publically, etc. I don't know if muds are considered performance, but they are certainly considered derivatives. I brought up the public performance bit mainly because earlier you had asked if a private gaming group would violate the law (it wouldn't).

The law is straightforward: Unless your work falls under a fair use exemption (Satire, non-profit -educational- purposes, preservation of decaying works, etc), you're likely infringing. And actually, I don't even know if a non-profit mud set up expressly for educational purposes would work, as I don't think you can create a derivative work for that purpose.

Anyway, you're free to have your opinion, but your opinion doesn't count for much when the law says differently.

Really, the reason I started this thread was that I find it ironic that so many people moan about mud codebase violators and then happily embrace other types of IP theft. I think it's all bad form myself, though I have a bigger problem with, say, Tolkien IP theft, as it's possible to actually hurt Tolkien Enterprises financially by abusing their IP, whereas it's not possible to hurt the DIKU creators financially by abusing their IP. (Though I'd be just as happy to see Medievia shut down as most of you.)

And no, I don't need a crusade. I would just like to see some consistency from the mud crowd on these boards. You even mention Medievia and people throw fits and spend lots of time posting links copyright law, but you mention all the other violators out there and all you hear are the crickets.

--matt

I think you'd have to reach pretty far to call Shadows of Isildur a public performance, given the barriers to access: You need to *find it* to play it. You need directions to get there. You need appropriate software to log in. It's not that much different from a private tabletop gaming session. Public performance, in my opinion (I'm admittedly not a lawyer), would be on stage in a park, performing your own Tolkien works.

I have a problem with fan clubs and sites that don't ask permission as well, but I'm not involved in their world like I am in the mud world. As for ISPs, they're common carriers and bear no responsibility for what goes on over their network. On the other hand, Topmudsites has expressly decided to ban Medievia for IP violation. Why not all the other IP violators as well?

A private, at-home table-top game doesn't violate anyone's IP rights, so I can't imagine why I'd have a problem with that. A publically available game most certainly does, which is why I have a problem with it.

Anyway, if your moral standard depends on whether an action hurts the copyright holder financially, I assume you've also got no problem with Medievia as it's not hurting anyone financially. But similarly, neither of us are in a position to judge whether a free game takes money away from or indirectly contributes money to Tolkien Enterprises by slightly altering the overall public perception of the license. Taken to an extreme, imagine a popular free game in which Gandalf was a child molestor. Surely you can imagine why, in that particular circumstance, Tolkien Enterprises might want to shut such a game down? Now consider the reality, which is that a licenseholder has a MUCH easier time simply banning the use of their property than it does monitoring everything that goes on in, say, a mud based on that property.

There are certainly arguments for why a licenseholder wouldn't care. I've read, for instance, that Jim Rigney (pen name Robert Jordan) has posted that he doesn't mind people creating free muds based on WoT. I don't know if that's true, but assuming it is, I can understand the motivation behind him doing that. Why **** off your fans? On the other hand, he risks that material entering the public domain due to willful lack of enforcement regarding his copyrighted material (I believe so at least. I am not a lawyer.) Raymond Feist strictly enforces any violation of his copyright partially for that very reason, for instance.
--matt

So...because I need directions to the opera house, need a ticket to access the opera, and need software to buy that ticket online, it's not a public performance? Of course it is.

In any case, while I'm not a lawyer, I deal with our lawyers regularly on these issues and I'm quite certain that if Tolkien Enterprises objects, there's not even a question about whether a mud like SoL is legally infringing on their property.

--matt

Eh - some people might argue that your focusing on MU*-land is a conflict of interest: Your games are all set in original-theme worlds, right? Therefore you might be seeking to help yourself by trying to shut down all the "violators" and thus reduce the rather large volume of MUDs and improve your own position (which involves financial gain, if I'm not mistaken). I'm not saying that's what you're doing - you may very well have the most altruistic motives at heart. But it's what someone *could* think, if you selectively choose MU*-land as your venue of choice for combating intellectual property violations.

If you're going to champion intellectual property rights, do it across the board so as to eliminate *any* possible misconceptions about your motives.

Why would I even discuss other types of copyright violation on a website devoted to muds? I'm opposed to all forms of copyright infringement, of course, but none of them make sense to post on here.

And I don't have completely altruistic motives. Shutting down a bunch of copyright infringers isn't going to help our business to any significant degree, but the idea of someone infringing on my IP without my permission ticks me off. Same way a father who lost a son to cancer might choose to be more involved in the fight against one form of human suffering (cancer) than another form like hunger or AIDs.
--matt

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this - as reasonable people can and sometimes must do.

In any event, good luck with your efforts.

Well, I think there are two levels of disagreement.

1. Legal. On this, there's really no reasonable disagreement. It's illegal.

2. Moral. On this there is lots of valid potential disagreement. After all, IP law like all property law is entirely a legal invention. I object to a number of laws and violate them regularly with a clear conscience.

Anyway, you're right, probably no point in continuing this discussion. If I get in contact with the Tolkien folks, I'll post about it here.

--matt

Oy vey - I'm a little late, aren't I? I didn't even realize this debate was raging until one of our players kindly directed a link to my attention, after I'd been away from the computer all day.

First - I wanted to say "thanks" for some of the kind words that I've seen said about me here. I'm honored to see others taking up my side of the case while I was absent, and appreciate it greatly.

Logos, I respect your position on the matter, and certainly admire your consistency. I do realize the somewhat precarious nature of my own arguments, from a strictly legal standpoint, as has been enumerated by yourself and numerous others in posts before.

I guess what strikes me the most about this thread and your argument is your distinction between the "legal" and the "moral". To wit:

Regarding point number one: you are absolutely correct. Despite the efforts I have made at contacting the Estate and researching the issues (see the MudConnector post I believe someone referenced above), my assumption that it is permissible to use their IP because they have not responded negatively is, technically, erroneous - and the usage is, technically, therefore illegal. This brings me to the latter half of your second point: I object to a number of laws and violate them regularly with a clear conscience.

As long as we're clear that your decision to pursue this issue, and continually single out and attack my project on the public fora - is a result of a personal moral preference, since clearly you do not seem to maintain that the law deserves to be upheld simply because it is the law - I don't really have much else to say. Of course, I could point out that my own opinion on the matter stems from a similar source, and note that this entire debate therefore becomes a conflict of personal preference and moral values rather than consistent, by-the-letter legality.

In short, you're certainly entitled to repeatedly call me a "thief" on various public fora, but I hope you understand the difficulties of your own position.

Best of luck in your attempts to track down someone at T-Ent - with any amount of luck, one way or another, this entire issue (at least, as it pertains to SoI) will be resolved soon so that it may be left in peace.


-T.

Yes, I don't believe the law deserves to be respected merely because it is the law. Laws that "protect" me from myself (anti-drug laws, seatbelt laws, laws against suicide, etc) I feel no compunction to uphold. Laws that involve harming others, I generally do (though I have little problem with vigilantism, for instance).

I'm firmly on the side of believing that infringing on someone else's copyright is wrong. I don't care if it's a mud codebase, Tolkien, or music, software or movies via Kazaa. I even sent a check to Microsoft once due to the fact that 2 years previously I had ripped them off with an illegal copy of Word.

The fact is, it would make me a complete hypocrite to feel or do otherwise (and happily I have no inclination to forgive that kind of behavior, so no danger there). Our players have created quite a few fansites, of course, and occasionally I've granted some of them the right to duplicate some of our help files or whatnot. But man does it **** me off when I find someone stealing our stuff without having gotten permission first. I don't care if they're doing it in homage. Common courtesy demands you obtain permission first, if nothing else. If you can't, shrug, don't do it. You have no right to it.

--matt

Sure you have the right to take whatever you want on the internet. No one can stop you...and if you think they can, just look at your own arguement and all the lists of muds that have "stolen" IP. No one cares really, mainly because they know deep down there is nothing you can do, short of coming to my house and having me arrested? Which you of course know where my house is? I live in Europe? Can western laws touch me here? Who knows, who cares, it's an empty battle, clearly lost from the beginning, but I agree with you, I hate how people steal and covet IP, but there is nothing you can do, I tell you this out of experience...

-Delerak

Well, I'm not willing to give the battle up. I've had some bad experiences working with law enforcement, but I've also had a positive experience where someone who stole our code was arrested by the F.B.I. It was a #### of a time getting them to do anything, but I tell you, that 18 year old kid apparently cried like a baby when the G-men showed up at his parents house (where he lived) and seized all the computer equipment in the house and arrested him. Little bastard.

I mean, I tend to agree that intellectual property has only about a 50/50 chance of surviving in its current form, but I just refuse to surrendur to side of entitlement and greed.

--matt

<Deleted>

I'd be curious to find out exactly what the circumstances were that the FBI stepped in and arrested someone for using your MUD's code? I believe this is an issue where others would be interested as well.

Although I admit I'm skeptical.

Darrik Vequir

The exact circumstances aren't something I'm going to talk about but involved two aspects, the sum of which led to the involvement of the FBI:
1. The kid stole our code by hacking into a backup machine we were using for awhile at our ISP, Wolfpaw. This in and of itself isn't a big deal. If he can't run it, it's of little value.
2. The kid proceeded to try and run a copy of Achaea briefly.

The FBI won't touch this sort of case unless there's at least $50,000 in actual or potential damages involved. I had to actually show them revenue documentation and so on to prove that our codebase is worth well into the 6 figures. (Really, they weren't very friendly at all. They acted as if they were doing me a favor rather than doing their freaking jobs enforcing the law.) Just from the conversations I had with the agent I was dealing with, I also don't think they would have lifted a finger had not both #1 and #2 happened, though it's possible I"m being unfair to them.

--matt

Any luck getting ahold of the T-Ent people today? I'm really curious to hear what they have to say.


-T.

Nope, not yet. I sent them an e-mail this morning and gave them a call but got voicemail.

There's actually a reasonable chance, I suppose, that they want to pretend products like yours don't exist. If they don't acknowledge your existence they may save themselves the trouble of shutting you down without risking their material entering the public domain.

I will certainly post here when or if I hear anything back from them.

--matt

Or they might, in fact, recognize the value of fan fiction/derivative works in generating interest in their IP.


-T.

My sincerest apologies if at any time I have been anything less than courteous to you, or any other.

At any rate, I wish you continued luck with your efforts to contact Tolkien Enterprises. Until then, as Brody so eloquently stated earlier: the windmills, I believe, are way.

All 1.4 million of them.

Take care.


-T.

The fact that Traithe sent a written proposal as requested shows that he did ask permission. The question is not of whether permission was asked, but of whether or not it was granted (according to legal and/or moral definitions).

Legally, a written proposal is an offer under contract law.  Traithe sent a written proposal, as was expressly requested by the offeree.  Therefore, I would guess that the best defense could be found under the contract law, specifically in relation to implied contracts.  The failure to expressly deny permission after Traithe sent a written proposal as requested might be interpreted legally as an implied acceptance.

Thus, Traithe's actions might be perfectly legal, both technically and in the spirit of the law.  Of course, in the case of contract law, there would be the question of whether or not value is being given in return, something required for a contract to be valid; but I suppose it might be said that, simply by creating a MUD for Tolkein fans to play in, Traithe may be giving value.  Of course, I'm no expert on contract law, so I may be wrong all the way around.

Even if Traithe's actions turn out to be illegal in a technical, strictly worded sense, whether or something is truly illegal is generally determined by whether or not a person made a reasonable effort to follow the spirit of the law. Traithe has certainly made a reasonable effort to make the right people knowledgeable of his intentions, and his intentions certainly seem to be in line with the norms of the Tolkein community, a community of which the Tolkein industry has ample indication of approval. (And why wouldn't they? The fan community is the main driving force of the industry.) Finally, he has not yet seemed to have broken his promise to remove the mud should permission ever be denied.

I think the difference between Traithe's actions and Vryce's actions should be obvious. Traithe has potential defenses on both the technical and moral side of the law. In the end, Vryce quite obviously had neither.

Nonsense. Without express permission, it's illegal. The Tolkien people are certainly not required to formally deny him permission. He is required to fomally obtan permission. It's reprehensible.

--matt

Here we are... mired in the sticky mess of a conflict of opinions, yet again. While I respect your right to have a viewpoint on the matter, I don't particularly respect your tendency to employ ad hominems (see quotes #1 and #2) without any backing of legal fact or logical consistency.

Until you have one or the other, perhaps you should consider avoiding the use of such tactics on public fora? Name-calling without a leg to stand on, so to speak, doesn't do much for your image.


-T.

You took the IP and are using it without any permission whatsoever. (You can't even be bothered to point out on your website that you have no permission to be using it and that all the Tolkien material in your world is copyright to Tolkien Enterprises.) You've admitted that you took the IP without permission. Therefore, you're a thief. If you don't like the word, stop stealing. I have no problems calling Vryce a thief, and I have no problems calling you a thief.

--matt

Hmm. The lack of a notice on the website was an oversight on my part, and one which I'll issue a public apology for - it'll be remedied shortly. However, I have in fact had such a notice within the game's help system for quite some time, as demonstrated below:

[code] > help world_credit
Miscellaneous -> World_credit

Middle-earth and its denizens are the singularly wonderful
creation of the good professor, J.R.R. Tolkien, and thus
are protected by various and sundry international copyright
laws. Shadows of Isildur MUD is in no way affiliated with
J.R.R. Tolkien, nor the Tolkien Estate, and uses this
material to construct a representation of his world under
the Fair Use Clause of the United States Copyright Law.

[Sun May 19 10;54;29 2002 - Traithe]
[/quote]

Awkward time to step into a discussion once it gets personal, but:

I've never seen a large derivative work claim fair use except for parody.  Which type of fair use are you engaging in? Small excerpts? Research?

Stilton

No worries, Stilton. That's actually a good question. Primarily, I decided to place it under Fair Use at the time due to the large number of fanfiction/derivative works out there that do the same. While in the strictest sense the wording of the law wouldn't apply to a project like SoI, a decent case could likely be made; the advent of the internet has really had a huge impact on IP law, and so I wouldn't be surprised if more liberal interpretations of it had already become precedents somewhere.

If you have any other ideas regarding possible exceptions that might cover the usage, they'd certainly be appreciated - I'm going to investigate the 'contract law' approach pointed out above by Burr when I have the opportunity.

[EDIT] Bah, just realized I didn't even really answer your question. Heh. Yes, the "case" I think that might be made with Fair Use would likely center around the research/education wording built into the law. Sorry about totally missing your point. <g> [/EDIT]

-T.

And just how does running a mud constitute research? I also haven't seen -any- indication whatsoever that your mud exists for the purposes of education.

The wide-spread use of Napster sure didn't make stealing music legal. Why do you think a handful of muds that also steal IP make your doing the same thing legal or ethical?
--matt

Lacking any actual response from Tolkien Enterprises, I highly recommend you pay a visit to the Writers University, which keeps a running tally of authors and their tolerance for fan fiction and other derivative works. Tolkien Enterprises and New Line Cinemas, for example, are listed as tolerating such works. Terry Goodkind (Sword of Truth) and Anne McCaffrey (Pern), on the other hand...

Another point of interest in my exploration of authors and their concerns about derivative works: Those that *do* lack tolerance for it, or have concerns about it, are more worried about people claiming the author turned around and stole a fan's idea for a work of fiction - not so much about the development of a community of enthusiasts. For example, J. Michael Straczynski and Terry Pratchett don't seem to *mind* fan fiction inspired by their works, they just don't want them in easily reachable public domains where THEY are known to hang out.

It seems they want to avoid being sued themselves, rather than worrying that these fanfic sites might be detrimental to their works/profits/etc.

True in some (perhaps many) cases, though not very relevant in this case as Tolkien won't  be creating any new works.

In addition, some authors are on record as refusing permission for "derivative" muds to avoid "dilution" of the value of their electronic rights (Raymond E Feist for example).

Another point which is relevant to this particular case is that  IP rights appear to be split between the Tolkien Estate and Tolkien Enterprises. I've not found a clear description of the split, but it appears that the Tolkien Estate retains copyright over literary works, but before his death JRR Tolkien granted various licences to Tolkien Enterprises covering movies and (probably) merchandise.

It's therefore possible that lack of a reply from Tolkien Enterprises indicates lack of interest (as well as lack of courtesy), but that the Tolkien Estate could still have something relevant to say.

Loriel,

Absolutely valid points. I'm suggesting, however, that *many* authors probably prefer to turn a blind eye to such works. It's like the Bugblatter Beast of Traal - all apologies to the estate of Douglas Adams. If you wear a towel over your head, the beast can't see you. Remove the towel, and you get eaten. Who's the towel-wearer and who's the beast? That depends - sometimes it's the author and sometimes it's the creator of the derivative work. If you don't know it's there, it can't hurt you. If they call attention to themselves, you must acknowledge their existence and risk legal exposure if a game's ideas somehow end up in your work of fiction.