[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted

[Stefan Ripperger]

From: Fred <fred at clift.org>

> You seem to be making the assumption, or rather declaring a
> statement that, blacksnow _does_ own the data.  Among other
> things, this is the point of the lawsuit and that hasn't been
> decided (in court - it clearly has been decided in your mind...)

> Let me draw an anaolgy.  Say I am and entrprising 8 yr old and I
> decide to charge neighborhood kids to allow them to come to my
> house and play with my legos.  Say I charge them $10/month for the
> right to play with my legos.  Are you saying that the neighborhood
> kids own the things they build with my legos at my house?  Do they
> own the design?  perhaps, do they own the legos?  Of course not.

> _IF_ they own the design they created with my legos, then as was
> suggested in another email, a printout or a binary object dump, on
> cd, or in a zip file or a paper-printout of the design of the
> character would be all they had a right to.  Stretching the
> analogy, I'd say that they could even sell the design to others,
> but I dont have to give random people you sold the designs to
> pre-built lego models with that design...

> What if this were a free game - no money changed hands - would
> that change things?

The following text is my complex attempt to get a clear evidence of
the injustice of BSI.

Let's do a further splitting of the elments on intellectual property
rights within digital game content on a logical basis. Don't wonder
if it gets complicated but i'll try to get a view on the end of a
possible lawsuit :)

In the case of interactive games we have data generators or data
formulas. A player is using a software user interface of a game and
as a following procedure a data generator creates a character in
example. The player takes it like it is and begins with playing his
character in the game world, the dataset will be saved into the
databank of the host. The player is renting the possibility to
control one or more datasets exclusively related to the game
world. The worth of a game dataset is defined through the game world
itself and in case of persistent worlds additionally through the
ingame-situation developed by inhabiting players. A game dataset
influences different actions in the game world. Those actions have
the main purpose to entertain people, that is the main purpose of
all games (i know some games dont entertain their players but that
was not the designer's purpose, hehe). This is the explicit reason
we can say a game dataset has a solid use in the gameworld. Outside
the gameworld a game dataset has no solid use because its in a
format that no application other than the original game application
could read.  So to summarize the content: A player owns the option
to use datasets within the gameworld. But he doesnt own the
datasets.

If someone grants "somebody" the option to control a fabrication
unit within a legal agreement for the sole purpose that the
"somebody" is entertained by dealing with a simple lever (switching
it on and off = proceeding with fabrication and stopping it again
and again) how would you decide as a judge if the "somebody" claims
to legally own the wares fabricated in the time he was dealing with
the lever (..and being entertained)?  Imho the judge would take the
sole purpose of the agreement (= Entertainment) into consideration
for all of his further judgements.

To go a little further, computer and videogames are not pure
entertainment, they are "interactive entertainment".

I haven't found any definition about the term "interactivity" but
about the adjective "interactive"

  Meriam Websters Dictionary:

     of, relating to, or being a two-way electronic communication
     system (as a telephone, cable television, or a computer) that
     involves a user's orders (as for information or merchandise) or
     responses (as to a poll)

  WordNet Dictionary:

    adj 1: used especially of drugs or muscles that work together so
    the total effect is greater than the sum of the two (or more)
    [syn: synergistic] [ant: antagonistic] 2: capable of acting on
    or influencing each other [syn: interactional]

  Free On-line Dictionary of Computing:

    <programming> A term describing a program whose input and output
    are interleaved, like a conversation, allowing the user's input
    to depend on earlier output from the same run.  The interaction
    with the user is usually conducted through either a text-based
    interface or a graphical user interface. Other kinds of
    interface, e.g. using speech recognition and/or speech
    synthesis, are also possible.

So i derive the definitions to the term "interactivity" in a simple
way: One element is using an element to influence itself, a "third"
element or a number of other elements. Two or more elements are
influencing each other, are acting together to influence theirself
or a number of other element(s) around them.  [Element = a living
being, object, item, landscape]

Therefore i state that with acting in an interactive manner, you
don't create elements but you change elements or different
situations. If you change a situation the result (possible element)
of that situation isn't meant to be exclusively yours. In the case
of an online game you're giving an order through the user interface
and this order (its the interactive procedure of the element Player)
is processed by a data formula within the serverside code which is
exclusive property to the host. The graphics data on the clientside
has the purpose to visualize the dynamic server datasets the player
is able to control and the purpose to simplify the controlling
process of the player-to-character within the game.

An acquired game item can't belong to a player because the player
didn't gained it. The only thing the player did, was starting an
interaction with his character dataset on the server and a following
interaction from the character dataset to another dataset (i.e.: a
monster) on a server. This 2 phasing interaction resulted in the
gain of an item which belongs to the character dataset of the player
but not to the player himself.  I think here we have a clear
advantage to the game developers. The best here is to say: The
player is the iniator of actions not the executive part!

Additionally:

  The software we as game developers or publishers are selling is
  not just software like Photoshop which you're using to design
  textures (royalty free).  I'll call it "producing software"
  now. Our game software is officially called "interactive
  entertainment software" and the purpose of this software is to be
  entertained, not to produce something. Groups that want to produce
  something out of an existing interactive entertainment product
  (with the straight purpose to be commercial successfull) and make
  money with it, will always broke the laws.

  If you are a third party developer developing expansions or addons
  with provided "ingame tools" of the original game and you want to
  make money out of that, you'll have to make an agreement with the
  developer or publisher of the original game software otherwise
  you'll be break the copyrights and will be persecuted by the
  law. I know there is a huge black market for such (mission) addons
  and the original developers can't trace all of them back but as i
  know most of them are illegal at least here in germany. An
  agreement between a developer and a third party developer will
  always warrant that all products are on the same line in regard to
  the purpose, vision, quality or whatever of the game.

To another point in a lawsuit:

  If a developer like Mythic Entertainment or Funcom has to defend
  itself on the court it has to do the following: You as a developer
  must proof that the "commercialization" of your "ingame-elements"
  by others results in a damaging of the "host-client-relationship"
  or in a negative affect on the play-ground that you can't
  compensate. If you can proof this clearly BSI won't have any
  chance on court.

With my pregoing mail about the legitimation of the EULA through a
simple info on the product box the matchpoints should eagerly go to
developers like Mythic.

ok this was my small statement for today ;)

Stefan Ripperger aka "Drakewl"








_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev