[MUD-Dev] Custom Server Roll Call?

[Ola Fosheim Grøstad <olag@ifi.uio.no>]

"Jon A. Lambert" wrote:
> For instance, there exists a substantial body of software which was first
> described in academic papers.  The authors of the software most certainly
> used the academic papers as the basis of the software, yet separate and
> distinct copyrights exist.  Legally speaking, the software is NOT a
> derived work of the paper.

Depends, but papers usually only describe abstract ideas. That description
is copy-protected. For instance, you cannot use the expressed ideas
contained in the "numerical recepies" book just like that.  You can use the
ideas and make your own expression of it.  It is easy to end up with
bordercases where it isn't clear whether you are building on the work or the
ideas, or where it might be considered fair use. However, it isn't too
difficult to stay on the right side of the border. Basically, don't copy the
specifics, go with the abtract and make your own expression and you are
pretty safe!

> What I am trying to say is these precautions are totally unnecessary.
> In fact someone who creates a MUD based exactly on the AD&D system can
> shout to the rooftops that they had the Dungeon Masters Guide in their
> left hand while they did it.

I wouldn't do that.  You would have a bad case.  Copyright protects a work,
an expression of an idea. It covers copies, modified copies, TRANSLATIONS
and collections of works.  Just because there is an US example of a case
where the court ruled in one particular way is not enough to convince me.
Think about this: it is possible to write a c2english and english2c
converter. So basically that you take something written in english and turn
it into a program should not be enough, at least if the court know enough
about programming :).

I think this is a good way to think about the issue: If you benefit from the
expressed idea, then it is a derived work. If you benefit from the idea (the
abstraction of the work) and make your own expression of it then it isn't.

Say, if I make a collection of love-quotes from the bible, then that
collection is copyrighted.  If somebody takes my collection, remove some
quotes and add others and translate it into another language, then it still
is a derived work.  If however somebody read my work, then say "Ahh love
quotes what a great idea", then go to the bible picking quotes on their own,
ending up with the same collection as I did, then it is not a derived
work...  That's my understanding of this. 

> This above though it models the AD&D game system and table exactly is NOT
> a copyright violation.  No matter how you implemented the algorithm.  The
> 
> use of game system terminology such as cleric, bard, druid, class, race,
> level is also NOT a copyright violation.  Why?  Because the individual
> terms that express a system concept are not copyrightable.  Otherwise I
> wouldn't be able to use the terms paging and socket in describing any
> system.

Only a "WORK" is copyrightable, not words and sentences.  Significant
collections of such ARE copyrightable. If you take tables of coefficients
from a complex gaming manual and use them, then it for sure is a copyright
violation.  Because you are not allowed to make a copy or a translation
without permission!  Modification is not enough.  It still is a derived
work.

However, to use the ideas, to use classes, separating healing characters
from fighters, hitpointmechanisms, experiencepoints etc is ok, because you
build upon ideas, not expressed ideas.  The court will deal with
bordercases, but I wouldn't bet my life on them to rule the same way in a
new case.

> My use of the above examples directly transcribed from the AD&D DMG is
> yet another example of "fair use".

Probably. And it wasn't significant. Take a table with 100 values and use
that, and I think you will have trouble if you use it in a commercial
context.  I'm not sure how far you can take it with a single hobbyist mud
though. You might be able to get away with more if you are able to convince
the court that you are just playing the game online instead of in a room or
something? :) (Don't blame me if they don't buy it)  I wouldn't blatantly
copy spell-collections, tables and such. Abstract spell mechanics, sure...

> > > OTOH, The practical bottom line is this:  If you receive a letter
> > > from a
> > > big corporate lawyer, immediately comply with whatever the hell they
> > > want, or be prepared to play the game of legal bluff and blunder, and
> > > accept the consequences, unjust though they may be.
> >
> > Nope, in the international community you don't :)
> 
> Huh?  I don't understand.  You can't be sued and overwhelmed in court by
> someone with a bigger bankroll?  Or Non-US ISPs don't get jittery and
> wobbly feet when threatened?  I missed something here. ;)

Ahh... Well...  I don't have any substantial income right now, so I think I
could get my expenses covered or something.  Still, sueing isn't very
beneficial here unless you have something substantial to show for it. 
Basically, if they take me to court they would not get much money out of it,
so why would they do it?  Anyway, I would let 'em take it to court if I had
not violated copyrights.  I am not sure if I would dare that in the US, or
rather, I would because I don't have any property which they can confiscate
in the US :*). 

A thought, maybe it is enough to hide the name of the author and install the
MUD on a foreign server?  Does Cuba heed copyrights? :-)
--
Ola



_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev