Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post

06-05-2003, 10:02 AM

I don't post here often because of usability. That offtopicness aside, I could hardly avoid the spirited discussion without a few comments.

Matt, err the_logos is dead on correct on this issue, both in a general legal sense and moreso IN PRINCIPLE.

1) There is no difference in principle between charging money for unauthorized use IP and not charging money for unauthorized use of IP. Unauthorized use of IP is the principle here. There are really few differences legally either.

2) There is nothing in the law nor is there any ethical basis in going ahead and using IP because the author failed to respond to a request. In this particular case there is an explicit license at the beginning of every Tolkein book prohibiting such use. It's not even required because that IS the implicit license according to copyright law.

Finally... while I don't agree with Matt's charge of hypocrisy, that being it makes one a hypocrite if one fails to accuse. Rather I think it hypocrisy is a much stronger accusation to make against someone who accuses while violating IP themselves. A suttle but important difference. Not complaining or caring is something else. However I do find that defending it or excusing it rather than silence or ignorance to be particularly disturbing, perilously close to hypocrisy.

Muds are made up of both literary works and source code. I don't think anyone would deny that a muds value is not solely predicated upon either but they are more or less equally important. Both are afforded the same protections under the law, although literary works enjoy some stronger protections in regard to character and setting use.

I believe the IP rights of builders deserve the same attention in the mud community that the IP rights of programmers. And there is and has been some selective attention spans in this area. Coopting Tolkien's IP for unauthorized use is no less offensive than coopting areas from C.A.W. for unauthorized use. Coopting Diku IP for unauthorized use is no less offensive than coopting GTK or Apache IP for unauthorized use.

Bottom line is I think the mud community (crap I swore I'd never use that phrase seriously) DOES undercut the general principles or ethics involved with ostracising offenders like Mikey Krause, by excusing other violations. The defense is an US versus THEM mentality. It is saying in essence...

It is OK to steal from those not involved in the mud community, but not OK to steal from those involved in the mud community.

That's all,

J. Lambert

06-05-2003, 10:02 AM	#113
Posts: n/a	I don't post here often because of usability. That offtopicness aside, I could hardly avoid the spirited discussion without a few comments. Matt, err the_logos is dead on correct on this issue, both in a general legal sense and moreso IN PRINCIPLE. 1) There is no difference in principle between charging money for unauthorized use IP and not charging money for unauthorized use of IP. Unauthorized use of IP is the principle here. There are really few differences legally either. 2) There is nothing in the law nor is there any ethical basis in going ahead and using IP because the author failed to respond to a request. In this particular case there is an explicit license at the beginning of every Tolkein book prohibiting such use. It's not even required because that IS the implicit license according to copyright law. Finally... while I don't agree with Matt's charge of hypocrisy, that being it makes one a hypocrite if one fails to accuse. Rather I think it hypocrisy is a much stronger accusation to make against someone who accuses while violating IP themselves. A suttle but important difference. Not complaining or caring is something else. However I do find that defending it or excusing it rather than silence or ignorance to be particularly disturbing, perilously close to hypocrisy. Muds are made up of both literary works and source code. I don't think anyone would deny that a muds value is not solely predicated upon either but they are more or less equally important. Both are afforded the same protections under the law, although literary works enjoy some stronger protections in regard to character and setting use. I believe the IP rights of builders deserve the same attention in the mud community that the IP rights of programmers. And there is and has been some selective attention spans in this area. Coopting Tolkien's IP for unauthorized use is no less offensive than coopting areas from C.A.W. for unauthorized use. Coopting Diku IP for unauthorized use is no less offensive than coopting GTK or Apache IP for unauthorized use. Bottom line is I think the mud community (crap I swore I'd never use that phrase seriously) DOES undercut the general principles or ethics involved with ostracising offenders like Mikey Krause, by excusing other violations. The defense is an US versus THEM mentality. It is saying in essence... It is OK to steal from those not involved in the mud community, but not OK to steal from those involved in the mud community. That's all, J. Lambert