|
|
|
Mordel's Bar & Grill |
|
  |
» |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Raven!
Clan Snow Raven
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1326
Location: United States
|
 Posted: 14-Jul-2002 11:57 Post subject: MegaMek... |
  |
|
Ok Chihawk, we'll just assume that you are right and that all my law profs are wrong.
But lets look at another case. What about the oil companies and their patent holding on all alternative fuel engines?
Well I have, sitting in my room right now, a detailed blue print and construction manual for a heat run engine. It works by absorbing heat and using that to move the pistons. Not very efficient, but a very interesting idea.
It is also copyrighted by Exxon.
Now the guy who gave this to me has been building these engines for years, and Exxon tried to shut him down quietly. they failed because they couldn't prove, to the judge, that his actions were causing them to loose a profit.
He continues to tinker with the design and I have yet to build mine.
Yet we build them and they have no ability to stop us! But according to your logic, i should be in jail because i'm breaking the law.
Raven, not a jail bird!
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Ronin
ComStar
Colonel
Joined: 05-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 907
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 14:41 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Well, it looks like Raven's law profs disagree with mine...
A violation of copyright is a violation of copyright.
The one case you cite could have been ruled as it was for any number of reasons:
1. the complainant (sp?) failed to show how the harm was done: the simple existence of anything in violation of copyright is a potential loss to the copyright holder, it is up to the complainant (usually through an attorney) to argue that point.
2. The judge was either ignorant of the law (which is possible because in most jurisdictions judges aren't required to be lawyers) or...
3. The judge chose to side with "the little man" against "big business" for whatever reason, regardless of what the law states (judges can do pretty much whatever they want since they usually serve a term of "good behavior" meaning until they croak or are convicted of a serious felony)
4. The judge may have been corrupt/biased through any number of methods. Yes, it does happen, believe it or not.
5. The methods used by the copyright (or in this case, patent) holder to enforce their rights may not have been the most effective. You say that Exxon tried to "quietly" shut down your aquaintance. This could have taken any number of forms for any number of reasons. They may have started by politely pointing out that he was in violation of their patent, in case he was unaware of it (which is unlikely because any legal copies of blueprints of the design would list the patent owner on it), thus avoiding any possible negative publicity. The is especially true since anytime "big business" tries to enforce their copyright or patent rights, they are portrayed in the media as evil moneygrubbing robber barons etc. (look at the Napster case, and especially how Metallica was treated for standing up for their rights).
I detect an implied sinister overtone from you in the way you said "quietly shut down" meaning that Exxon threatened through smiling teeth to utterly destroy your aquaintance for daring to interfere with their plans of keeping the world dependent on fossil fuels by buying the patents to and then hiding and "clean fuel" technologies that they become aware of. OK, I may have exagerated some for effect, but that's what I'm picking up. In other words, Exxon probably served your aquaintance with a cease and desist order, your aquaintance fought it in court, and the judge through it out for either the above listed reasons or because of a technical error in the document.
The way I've been taught is that illegal is illegal, theft is theft, and violation of copyright/patent laws *is* theft. As seen in the Napster case, just because you have the ability to do something doesn't make it legal. As seen in the FASA/Harmony Gold case (and numerous others), just because a judge/jury made a ruling doesn't always mean it was the right one; it may have been the convenient one, the personally desired one, or one based on ignorance or bias.
My question for you is: how did your aquaintance obtain this blueprint? If Exxon truly does hold the patent, then any copy that he has, unless he works for them in some capacity and was given a copy for purposes of his assignment, is an illegal copy. Furthermore, distribution of the blueprints is illegal, even if his copy were legal (unless he was directed by Exxon to distribute it to someone else).
My understanding is this: Yes Raven, you and your aquaintance are in violation of the law. The penalty in a successfully prosecuted case is more likely to be monetary (if not just simply "cease and desist") rather than jail time, but it is no less serious or wrong for that fact. A person (and remember that corporations are legally considered to be persons) has a right to protect their financial investments, to not have them stolen or wrongfully damaged (i.e. through an "act of man" rather than an "act of god") in any way.
Ronin
|
|
| Back to top |
 
|
Vagabond
Mercenary
Mr. Referee
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 5642
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 16:36 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
what i catch here is raven is pointing out cases that have been denid do to a loop hole of some kind. [ie: same idea, different method]
while this is great for inventores world wide, the MS liscence clearly stats "all things electronic for battletech." so unfortinetly, MM is an illegal program. sigh.
_________________
one must work hard to cultivate the mind and body. and one must always cultivate the mind.
//^(^_^)^\\
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Black_Phoenix
Clan Nova Cat
Star Colonel
Joined: 23-Jun-2002 00:00
Posts: 382
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 16:39 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't FASA sued by HG for copyright infringment over the Unseen?
If so, then what Raven has been saying would not make sense. FASA was sued over the use of someone else's designs, not for causing a loss of profit.
Note: Please keep in mind that I do not remember the case, or what year it was held in, or how old I was at the time. I am writing this from memory of what others have told me about the case.
_________________
History is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.
-Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Raven!
Clan Snow Raven
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1326
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:26 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Two things.
First Exxon filed a cease and desist order to my buddy, who was an engineer with Digital. The lawyer for digital pointed out an interesting fact.
this is the second point. There are two things that have to be remembered when dealing with copyright issues: number 1 is that the user must be using the copyright or it is automatically taken away from them.
the second thing to remember is that if the owner of the copyright uses it for a different reason then the person who supposedely stole the copyright then technically there is a new copyright issue, as a new use technically counts as an invention. Remember, the two button vs one button mouse.
Now Ronin, thank you for pointing out the harm princible again, your profs do agree with mine, you just misunderstood what I wrote. On this same aside, yes Exxon is evil. They hold alternative fuel technologies as long as they can to keep them from getting out to the public. They can collectively bite my ass.
Now lets look at MegaMek.
MegaMek is an electronic verson of BattleTech, but then again, so is a play by email game. Therefore Chihawk is in violation of the Microsoft licence. In fact, if you look at in an extreme light, even mentioning the word BattleTech in an electronic format (such as, say, this posting board) is a violation of the Microsoft license.
However, Microsoft, and I, have both realized the same thing: there are to many knock off games to do anything about it. They have decided to simply ignore the problem and let it persist as long as it DOES NOT HARM THEM, financially that is.
Funny how this harm principle keeps on slipping in here huh?
Now. Carrying on we come to another little great thing about copyright law. Remember above where I stated that if a copyright holder doesn't act he losses the copyright? Thats how my friend and I aren't breaking the law. The point behind this clause is to keep technology growing. This way someone who doesn't like the technology can't simply buy the copyright and sit on it. Its the whole free market idea (remember, a copyright is technically anticapitlist, and we're a capitilist nation, or try to be).
So because Microsoft has not taken action against message boards, Play by Emails, Megamek, etc etc, their copyright has become nulled de facto. If, upon aquisition of the licence, they had actually bothered to do something about all the BattleTech stuff online they would have a case against Megamek, but they didn't, so they don't. Tough cookies.
Raven, who is actually enjoying himself!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Raven!
Clan Snow Raven
Galaxy Commander
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 1326
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:28 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Oh and Chihawk I have a question, since technically i'm breaking the law by having the blue prints (which don't name an owner btw, these are the ones from the original inventor who gave them to us after he sold the patent to Exxon), are you going to give monetary restitution to Microsoft for every Play by Email game you have becuase thats an electronic version of BattleTech as well?
Just curious.
Raven!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rick Raisley
HeavyMetal
MechMeister
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 112
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:38 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2002-07-14 11:57, Raven! wrote:
Ok Chihawk, we'll just assume that you are right and that all my law profs are wrong.
|
|
Unfortunately, law profs, and the rest of us, do not say what's right or wrong per the law; courts do.
Quote:
|
Now the guy who gave this to me has been building these engines for years, and Exxon tried to shut him down quietly. they failed because they couldn't prove, to the judge, that his actions were causing them to loose a profit.
|
|
Trying to shut him down quietly is a lot different that taking him to court, I would think. But I'm sure that 1) Exxon has to look at what return they will get for their legal dollar, if any, and 2) If they /really/ wanted to shut him down, cost be hanged, they could.
Quote:
|
He continues to tinker with the design and I have yet to build mine.
Yet we build them and they have no ability to stop us! But according to your logic, i should be in jail because i'm breaking the law.
|
|
Well, it sounds to me like he's tinkering with a design, building one for /himself/. I doubt that /anyone/ has a problem with that. But if he starting making and selling them, or making them and /giving/ them away, that would be a completely different story.
Many people seem to feel that you can do anything they want to with copyrighted or trademarked material, and that as long as they don't charge for it, it's okay. That is not the case.
First, the person owning the copyright does not have to prove any loss whatsever to /stop/ the person from doing it. I didn't say sue him and get money, just stop him. If, for example, you copied and printed a copyrighted book, one of FASA's for example, and gave them away on a mass scale, that is an /absolute/ violation of copyright. No question. And assuming they or someone else took it to court, you'd lose. For sure, and have to stop. Now, would you have to pay them any money? That's a different question. For that, they would have to prove that they did in fact lose money by you giving them away. Shouldn't be too hard, but unless you gave a bunch of them away, there probably wouldn't be a lot of money involved, so it's debatable whether it would be worth fooling with or not.
Now if you made a copy of that book for yourself, is that copyright infringement? Maybe or maybe not, but you certainly aren't going to get sued for it.
_________________
Rick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rick@heavymetalpro.com
www.heavymetalpro.com
Home of HeavyMetal Software
Official Software for Classic BattleTech
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sir Henry
Team Bansai
Senior Tech Specialist
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4899
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:38 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
To mush Legalize...Brain turning to mush....
ooowwwwwwwww
_________________
Sir Henry
A Dragon in the disguise of a bunny, is still a Dragon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8052
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:48 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
You don't understand what MicroSoft's licence is.
MS owns everything that consists of compuer versions of the board game or set in the game world.
My PBeM aren't played on a computer, they are played on a table top. The fact that the results are ferried to the players via an electronic medium doesn't change the fact that it is still the board game we are playing.
Message boards are allowed by Wizkids provided you follow the rules that they have for sites about their game. Message boards are not games, and as such are not covered under MicroSoft's licence.
MegaMek is a violation of MicroSoft's licence because it is a game you play on your computer that uses info out of the Battletech game world.
And you don't have to be using your copyright to stop someone from using it. A buddy of mine named Mike Taylor published (well, tried to publish) an updated version of an old FGU game called "Flashing Blades". (Fantasy Games Unlimited has been out of business for a very long time.) It was actually all set to go to the printer and he was soliciting pre-orders from game wholesalers when he got a certified letter from the copyright holder telling him he couldn't release the game unless he paid him a licence fee.
When he laughed at the guy he was sued. He lost. It cost him almost $25,000 because he had to pay his lawyer AND the lawyer of the other guy (which is what the Civil law calls for in CT, the state where the suit was filed), was prohibited from releasing the game, and was forced to destroy all copies he owned.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8052
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:51 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2002-07-14 20:28, Raven! wrote:
Oh and Chihawk I have a question, since technically i'm breaking the law by having the blue prints (which don't name an owner btw, these are the ones from the original inventor who gave them to us after he sold the patent to Exxon), are you going to give monetary restitution to Microsoft for every Play by Email game you have becuase thats an electronic version of BattleTech as well?
Just curious.
Raven!
|
|
I didn't say owning the blueprints was any sort of violation of any law (presuming you didn't steal them that is  ).
And as I noted while you were typing this, my games don't violate MS's copyright because it's not a computer game.
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rick Raisley
HeavyMetal
MechMeister
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 112
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 20:59 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2002-07-14 20:26, Raven! wrote:
this is the second point. There are two things that have to be remembered when dealing with copyright issues: number 1 is that the user must be using the copyright or it is automatically taken away from them.
|
|
Absolutely not true. You better talk to your profs again. First, I think you might be mixing up terminology here, and that is important, because you could never even /get/ a copyright on an engine design. You could get a /patent/, but not a copyright. And I'm sure what Exxon must have in this case is a patent.
The rules about use and abuse of patents and copyrights are /completely/ different questions. Our company puts out about $50,000 a year to patent lawyers, I can tell you absolutely that patents cannot be lost just because you're no longer using them. Our competitors have stuff patented from 15 years ago that we can't touch, even though it never went beyond the prototype stage required to get the patent.
And with Copyrights, non-use would make even less sense. Edgar Allen Poe wrote the Raven, and published it, years ago. If it were no longer published, do you think all of a sudden you or I could publish a book with it in? Just because it wasn't published anymore? No way!
Quote:
|
the second thing to remember is that if the owner of the copyright uses it for a different reason then the person who supposedely stole the copyright then technically there is a new copyright issue, as a new use technically counts as an invention. Remember, the two button vs one button mouse.
|
|
This is true, but it also makes me realize that you're really talking about patents, not copyrights. Anything that's /used/ requires a patent. The mouse for example. Copyrights are generally for written publications and software. Patents are for processes and constructions.
Quote:
|
Now lets look at MegaMek.
MegaMek is an electronic verson of BattleTech, but then again, so is a play by email game. Therefore Chihawk is in violation of the Microsoft licence. In fact, if you look at in an extreme light, even mentioning the word BattleTech in an electronic format (such as, say, this posting board) is a violation of the Microsoft license.
|
|
I hope you don't really believe that. I can't make a Yatzee game, as that would violate, what, I don't know here, patents or copyrights. But I can play it. I can play it be mail if I want (man would that be boring). I can talk about and type the name and say it in print. Yatzee. Yatzee. Yatzee. In fact, the guys that own Yatzee probably would love it that I say it all I can.
Quote:
|
However, Microsoft, and I, have both realized the same thing: there are to many knock off games to do anything about it. They have decided to simply ignore the problem and let it persist as long as it DOES NOT HARM THEM, financially that is.
Funny how this harm principle keeps on slipping in here huh?
|
|
Well, that almost always has to be the case, doesn't it? Nobody can afford to fight every little infraction. We all have to pick our battles. Microsoft is pretty busy in their own. But you're right, unless they feel they are really losing money, why would they bother. That doesn't make anyone who violates their copyright right; it just may not be worth their while to do anything about it.
Quote:
|
Now. Carrying on we come to another little great thing about copyright law. Remember above where I stated that if a copyright holder doesn't act he losses the copyright? Thats how my friend and I aren't breaking the law. The point behind this clause is to keep technology growing. This way someone who doesn't like the technology can't simply buy the copyright and sit on it. Its the whole free market idea (remember, a copyright is technically anticapitlist, and we're a capitilist nation, or try to be).
|
|
Again, you're probably talking about patents. In either case, though, that is wrong. Yes, you most certainly CAN buy a patent and sit on it. For 17 years (I think that's changed now, but for the length of the patent). That's your period to do something with it. Then, you just have to change it a bit, and extend the patent.
The free market idea is /not/ stealing the idea of someone else, who possibly spent years and many dollars in coming up with it, just because they're not currently working on it or haven't been able to make a success out of it. The free market idea is talking to that person, buying the patent if you think it's that great, compensating the person for his hard work, and then making it pay for itself.
Quote:
|
So because Microsoft has not taken action against message boards, Play by Emails, Megamek, etc etc, their copyright has become nulled de facto.
|
|
I sincerely hope you're not going into the legal profession, and that the schooling your profs are giving you are not in training for law. You/they/someone has an incredible misunderstanding of copyrights, patents and the law.
_________________
Rick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rick@heavymetalpro.com
www.heavymetalpro.com
Home of HeavyMetal Software
Official Software for Classic BattleTech
|
|
| Back to top |
|
chihawk
Clan Blood Spirit
Master Bartender
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 8052
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 21:04 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
OK Rick, I now have a very important question to ask....
...exactly when do you start work on HMYatzee? 
_________________
www.210sportsblog.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Cadet
ComStar
Lieutenant, SG
Joined: 17-Mar-2002 00:00
Posts: 495
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 21:09 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
You need a better example Rick. Poe's The Raven is Public Domain.
And if there is any doubt, just check the signature
_________________
I'm not family friendly. That's why I don't post here.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Rick Raisley
HeavyMetal
MechMeister
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 112
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 21:12 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Quote:
|
On 2002-07-14 21:09, Cadet wrote:
You need a better example Rick. Poe's The Raven is Public Domain.
|
|
hehehehe... You're right, I should have done just a wee bit of research there.
_________________
Rick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
rick@heavymetalpro.com
www.heavymetalpro.com
Home of HeavyMetal Software
Official Software for Classic BattleTech
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Sir Henry
Team Bansai
Senior Tech Specialist
Joined: 04-Feb-2002 00:00
Posts: 4899
Location: United States
|
| Posted: 14-Jul-2002 21:14 Post subject: MegaMek... |
|
|
Legalize is starting to effect you all!!!!Run!!!! Run for lives!!!!!!
_________________
Sir Henry
A Dragon in the disguise of a bunny, is still a Dragon.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
» |
All times are GMT-04:00 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
