[MUD-Dev] Blacksnow revisted

[Hans-Henrik Staerfeldt]

On Sat, 23 Mar 2002, Stefan Ripperger wrote:
 
> 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.

This does not hold at all...

This means you interact with something, you don't create anything?
How about a writer interacting with his editor, merely _changing_
the elements of the harddrive, does he not hold any rights to that
change (a novel) ? I think so. Even if it is distributed by means of
elements belonging to others.

In the purest physical form, you're not able to create anything, its
_all_ about change and transformation.

> 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.

Wrong again. Although, this is more closer to the problem at hand.
If you interact with something new the big question is weather this
can be said to belong to you in any way. The question is weather it
falls below a margin of what is reasonable. Like i could not state
that noone is to mimic the way i enter an elevator (which would
probably get me into a psychiatric ward real quick), unless it was
remakably different from the norm. (and that no matter if the
elevator was not produced with the purpose of entertainment mind
you!)

Besides, i think the point of the lawsuit is more if the EULA is
defendable, and if commercialization of transfer of assests _while_
in the posession of Mythic Entertainment is an issue of 'fair use'.

> ok this was my small statement for today ;)

small :-)

> Stefan Ripperger aka "Drakewl"

I think that theyre both right. BSI can sell all they want, and
Mythic Entertainment can kick them off their servers for it. I still
prefer my solution with a shard to kick the itemmongers into.  It
would kill the industry dead as items would become insanely
expensive, and mostly only acessible at lower levels as high-level
itemmongers were kicked onto the alternate shard. Alternatively the
buyers could be kicked in there too.

Hans Henrik Stærfeldt   |    bombman at diku.dk    | work:  hhs at cbs.dtu.dk      |
Address:                |___  +45 40383492    __|__       +45 45252471     __|
DTU, Kemitorvet,        | Scientific programmer at Center for Biological     |
bygn 208, CBS.          |  Sequence Analysis, Technical University of Denmark|

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