Not legal...

[ChristineS]

Someone is selling Fanmissions on his/her homepage and at e-bay.

See this thread: http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64190

http://www.ivyrains.com/ --> Software --> Thief mods

I don't know what to say, I'm sooo mad about this :mad:

[Thorin Oakenshield]

Thieving Bastard:mad:
{Sorry in advance if I offend anyone}

[ChristineS]

What can we do against it? :confused:

[Thorin Oakenshield]

If I were in the USA then for one I'd send negative feedback about the seller;) It's there for all to see:D

[ChristineS]

The software section on the website is gone now. I have received this e-mail:

Thema: Re: The Lord Ashton Series
Datum: 27.01.2003 13:13:12 (MEZ) Mitteleuropäische Zeit
Von: ivyrains@ivyrains.com
An: ZinkChristine@aol.com
Internet-eMail: (Details)



Hello...
The software has been removed, from both eBay and the website...
It was never my intention to profit from the software - only to promote the genre...
Please accept my apologies...

[yubetcha]

I think that most people would correct something they did if they realized that it was wrong... or when they were caught :) . Hope so, anyway. I'm glad that you stopped it. I sure would've liked to have seen the email that you sent to him. Way to go. :)

[Tin Star]

You still have to ask yourself how long was it there and how much was made off of this.

Tin Star

[Lake]

Way to go, Christine. I hope he did not make any money.

[Munin the Raven]

"It was never my intention to profit from the software - only to promote the genre... "

Bologna. Selling the work of others that's normally free is illegal, not to mention incredibly immoral and tasteless. There are dozens of Thief-related sites out there and TTLG is very well known. Such a violation does nothing to promote the "genre"; if anything it's anti-promotion because it misleads people into thinking that they have to pay for something free. Some loser was out to make a quick buck and they got caught. What a well-thought and original apology, too. I'm sure they'll never do it again.:mad:

Thorin, I think most members here are more forgiving of language directed at such individuals.;)

[BrokenArts]

Geez, I can't believe this. But, in this day and age, I am not surprised. People will do just about anything. I am glad the way it ended. But still, it doesn't change the fact. Is he gonna go under another name and try that stunt again?

[Thorin Oakenshield]

Originally posted by Munin the Raven
[B...Thorin, I think most members here are more forgiving of language directed at such individuals.;) [/B]

Yes, I don't want to offend anyone here especially any younger ones among us Or older younger ones ;). Also I only cuss when I'm angry:o BTW I got that same email too.

[GBM]

Anyone who makes any money from the distribution of FMs is not only being a right vulture, but is also wiping their bum with the DromEd EULA and the legal statements (hopefully) contained within every FM's ReadMe file.

Mad props to those who emailed our little entrepreneur and gave him a slice of mind.

:)

<small>(edit for great gender confirmation)</small>

[BrokenArts]

OK, I have to ask this, hey GBM, is that you? :o :p Our GingerBread Man? *feels stupid for asking, but have to know*:rolleyes:

[GBM]

Of course it is, my shoogarplum. :)

And to prove it, here is an PICTAR of me holding the CROPSE of the last guy who tried to IMPERSONAET I.

(muahahaha... it is not a corpes, really... it is a JELLY BABY!)
¬¬

[BrokenArts]

Oh good, why thank you snookum's. :p Why did I ask?
Well, have seen you post with this screenie called GBM. If you look at the members page, we have here, Gingerbread Man, and then there is Gingerbreadman. Ok which is it? ;) Pfft.

There's only *1* GBM, or is it Gingerbreadman, or is it Gingerbread Man around here. Wait, I fear an imposter! But, Gingerbread Man has your home page. Oh this is fun, does it make sense? Sure it does.

That jelly baby, did ya eat it? Was it good? Care to share?

[GBM]

The multiple Gingerbread Men are the result of various SNAFUs that happened after these boards went vBB. Seems the forum mailer has ISSUES WITH SENDING PEOPLE THEIR ACTIVATION EMAILS. >:|

So err.. yeah.

This is me, the others are weird pseudo-mes, stuck in some bizarre limbo between Registered and Not, and I would not cry a single tear if they were BALEETED. ;)

Plus also the jelly bébé was DLISHUS.

[BrokenArts]

Well good, glad we got that cleared up aye? I just like to confuse the mess even more. I bet you like the weird pseudo-mes of yoz.

Aaahh yes, the great switcheroo of thee board crippled a few of our Cripple Burrick patrons, and then some I am afraid.

If you pet, and feed GM nicely, I bet he could fix it for ya. I know you wouldn't pet GM though. :p Let me do that.

Damn you don't share easy do ya. ;) Watch yer purse there buddy.

[Munin the Raven]

GBM, you don't happen to have a buddy named Pom-Pom do you?:D

I'm just making sure you're not who I think you are. I wouldn't want any "flagrant system errors" to happen around here.;)

[Bat-mite]

Back on topic ;) I think that anyone who is looking on eBay for the Thief games at this late date would probably already know about the free FM sites. So probably the perp didn't make any money, which was why he was so willing to pull the ads.

I find it funny, though, that a bunch of people who willingly rob people blind in the games got so offended at someone who was "living out the fantasy."
;) :o :D

[SlyFoxx]

It is a bit ironic. But then again, Garrett is no ordinary thief.:p

[Telliamed]

It's quite simple, really.

Ivyrains is like Ramirez.

Garrett doesn't deny that he's a thief. But the nobles rob the peasentry blind, and say it's their right.

[Vanguard]

Since the seller isn't selling anything of the game itself but just the files the author created, and since none of the FM authors have bothered to copyright their material (or few have), it is really illegal? Granted that maybe the seller should have gotten release forms from the authors for permission to distribute their FMs, but are the FMs really their possessions since they are obviously dispersing them without limitation to the public? I am all against pirating software, but you cannot pirate software that isn't copyrighted. If it is distributed to the public domain without a license or other restriction, especially if not legally enforcable, well, then you have no control over it. That's like the folks in the newsgroups always asking about how to prevent recipients from forwarding or editing their emails while not realizing that the received emails are no longer their property unless copyrighted or associated with a copyright.

Was the seller's auction an bidding auction (in which the max bid is not preset)? Or was it a fixed-price auction? If fixed-price, and since no one mentioned what the seller was asking for the price, maybe he was doing the same thing as some other well-known taffer here (Munin?) that has a CD-RW and is distributing the FMs but is only asking for the cost of materials (i.e., CD-R) and shipping (postage) and handling (packaging) costs. That would be fair. If I asked any of you to cut me CDs with all the FMs on them, I would expect and not argue about having to pay for the CD media and the cost to ship it to me (as long as those costs were known before the "sale").

But as for illegality of selling of the FMs, I'm not sure that it is illegal. If you wrote a bunch of poems in a notebook and then *deliberately* left the notebook in the mall so anyone could read them, do you really have any recourse if someone then decides to publish them (and collect for sales of the book)? That's why all research and development is secretive. You don't own anything until you have something to patent or copyright (and why someone can beat you to it).

Unless we happen to have a lawyer here informed regarding property, copyright, and patent law, yeah, we can all agree that it sounds nasty what this seller was doing, that it was definitely wrong and sure seems like stealing, but whether or not it is actually illegal seems really iffy to me.

[Munin the Raven]

As soon as something is published on the web it is protected by copyright laws. That's what everyone who works in web design and technical writing tells me, and I figure they would know. Apparently, it's different from full copyright protection but most of the rules still apply.

I have not distributed any FMs. I believe Komag is who you're thinking of Vanguard.

The fact that this material was being auctioned as opposed to being distributed for the cost of CDs and shipping is what makes it so shady in my eyes. Even if it was a fixed price auction, why not just distribute them on a site and have it linked in the community sites? Like Bat-mite said above, most of the people looking for Thief at this point in time know about the community and available FMs.

[Mr. Perfect]

http://www.stockton.edu/~stk21295/Flagrant_Error.jpg

[Munin the Raven]

That site is quality humor. But should we tell the others? Hmmmm.;)

[GBM]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Since the seller isn't selling anything of the game itself but just the files the author created, and since none of the FM authors have bothered to copyright their material (or few have), it is really illegal?

Copyright protection begins when any created work is actually created and fixed in a tangible form. (http://www.whatiscopyright.org/) Regardless of little © sign.
In this case, however, the DromEd EULA and the readme file contained with each FM specifically prohibits the redistribution of these files for any commercial purpose whatsoever. This technically includes being reimbursed for materials, shipping, and handling. Whatever you may think, FMs remain the intellectual property of LGS (though now that actually means they are the property of Eidos) and of the FM's creator. And if anyone is gonna distribute them for profit, I'm sure it will Eidos and only Eidos.

At $20 a disc (for example), there's profit being made. There's no way someone spends $20 for a CD-R and to mail it... Last I checked, mailing rates for an item that weighed as much as ONE AND A HALF POUNDS were somewhere around $16 US if you were sending it Global Priority Mail to Australia. Much, much less to other countries, even less to American destinations. So unless these are pound-and-a-half CDs costing $4 apiece being sent to Australia by Global Priority Mail, buddy's trying to make cash.



Granted that maybe the seller should have gotten release forms from the authors for permission to distribute their FMs, but are the FMs really their possessions since they are obviously dispersing them without limitation to the public?

Not dispersed without limitation. No FM author has the right to do that. Again, all FMs remain, technically, the property of Eidos. That's a limitation right there. I cannot sell my own FM. In fact, the only people who can do anything with an FM without limitation is LGS (Eidos), as in "When you publicly distribute your level you automatically grant Looking Glass Studios the perpetual, royalty free right to use, modify, license and distribute your level in any way we choose."

But FMs also remain the property of the FM's creator, under the Berne Convention on international copyright law, if I haven't completely misconstrued the laws.

I am all against pirating software, but you cannot pirate software that isn't copyrighted. If it is distributed to the public domain without a license or other restriction, especially if not legally enforcable, well, then you have no control over it. That's like the folks in the newsgroups always asking about how to prevent recipients from forwarding or editing their emails while not realizing that the received emails are no longer their property unless copyrighted or associated with a copyright.

Don't make me say it a third time, please.

Was the seller's auction an bidding auction (in which the max bid is not preset)? Or was it a fixed-price auction? If fixed-price, and since no one mentioned what the seller was asking for the price, maybe he was doing the same thing as some other well-known taffer here (Munin?) that has a CD-RW and is distributing the FMs but is only asking for the cost of materials (i.e., CD-R) and shipping (postage) and handling (packaging) costs. That would be fair. If I asked any of you to cut me CDs with all the FMs on them, I would expect and not argue about having to pay for the CD media and the cost to ship it to me (as long as those costs were known before the "sale").

What sort of auction it was is irrelevant.
Again, not only is it prohibited (if you interpret the EULA very strictly) to accept compensation for materials and shipping, what you are effectively doing is reselling something that is the intellectual property of Eidos Games. Unless you code your own engine and do your own graphics and GUI and physics and EVERYTHING else, you are using code that belongs to Eidos. You are selling code that belongs to Eidos.

But as for illegality of selling of the FMs, I'm not sure that it is illegal. If you wrote a bunch of poems in a notebook and then *deliberately* left the notebook in the mall so anyone could read them, do you really have any recourse if someone then decides to publish them (and collect for sales of the book)? That's why all research and development is secretive. You don't own anything until you have something to patent or copyright (and why someone can beat you to it).

*sigh*

Unless we happen to have a lawyer here informed regarding property, copyright, and patent law, yeah, we can all agree that it sounds nasty what this seller was doing, that it was definitely wrong and sure seems like stealing, but whether or not it is actually illegal seems really iffy to me.

It is not legal. Period. I have spent an awfully long time researching this in the past, I continue to.

" Your levels must be distributed free of charge. Neither you nor anyone else may sell, rent, lease or commercially exploit these levels in any way. You may only exchange them at no charge to licensed users of Thief 2: The Metal Age."

You may ONLY exchange them at no charge to licensed users. That's ALL you can do. Technically, you're supposed to make sure that the person you're sending an FM to has a legitimate copy of the game, if you really want to keep your buns out of the hot oil, but of course that's a bit much to expect (and how are you going to do it, anyway? All you can do is ask, and hope they aren't lying...)

Nevertheless, the EULA is clear on that. You are not to commercially exploit levels made with DromEd in any way, and they must be distributed free of charge.

That doesn't mean "You pay me a flat fee and I'll mail you a CD and we'll call it even."

[Xcom]

Suppose you made your FMs without use of DromEd. Can you sell it then?

[theBlackman]

Originally posted by Xcom
Suppose you made your FMs without use of DromEd. Can you sell it then?

Now you are getting into a grey area. But I suspect that if you are using the Dark Engine, and are not licensed to do so, and further, if you are using the THIEF characters and world as your venue, you would be in copyright violation. In both cases.

[Vanguard]

Unfortunately the web site, the eBay auction, and TTLG are not available so I cannot see what all the hullaballoo was about.

So, Munin, you really believe that your prior post is still your property? Publishing content by simply putting it out there and passively wishing that you retain ownership doesn't give you ownership. Just because you say you own it doesn't make it so. The bank that provides a loan for your new car obtains the deed for it. When you pay it off, you obtain the deed for it. When you publish a book, you obtain the copyright for it. When you want to prevent others from copying your product or identity, you get a trademark. You don't just assume ownership through passivity. You do something active, you commit some action, which is usually separate of the item itself, to prove your ownership. You don't remain passive and just hope that others allow you to keep it as your asset. I've never heard of self-copyrighting content simply because it got created. Sounds more like something from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" fiction.

The assumption that releasing some content on a web site makes it your property without registered proof and that it somehow self-copyrights seems very naive. Anyone could copy or alter it and then claim it is their property, and since they need no further proof than you then their claim is just as valid. I'm sure most web publishers don't care about ownership. They only produce the content for whomever is their employer. The employer then has to commit some action to retain ownership of that content both with contracts with the web publisher and thereafter through some form of registered proof of ownership.

Hey, I say I own your car. If you don't have any legal means to show otherwise and I take your car, tough, it's mine. Legal means, like a deed, copyright, trademark, and such, require the claimed owner to do something active, and which is usually separate of the entitiy, to establish that ownership. Spray painting your name on the side of the car (or putting text within your web site that says it is yours) still doesn't prove it is yours. I can also spray paint my name over your name for the same level of legal proof (or actually the lack thereof). Just saying you own something pretty much is hoping that no one else really wants it. I'm not talking about what is right or wrong, just what is legal or illegal.

As far as the argument that anyone looking for Thief already knows about the forums, web sites, and other thiefsie communities, well, if they did then why bother complaining about this seller? There would be no buyers because they know they can it for free or much cheaper elsewhere. However, if the intent was to further promote Thief, you do not create new devotees by canvassing the current community of users. Missionaries go outside their community to generate new members. Growing from within only works by procreation. As any web site owner becomes aware of, "Build it and they will come" does not work to generate traffic by non-customers. Maybe a few hit your site due to a search or reference. You need to do something beyond creating your web site to get generate traffic and to create new customers (players in this case). So it is possible this seller was doing what they said they were and trying to gain more exposure for Thief.

I don't disagree that perhaps the seller was committing a legal tort (in my country but maybe not in theirs), but I cannot agree, either, because I live in a country where you are supposed to presume innocence until proven guilty. Without seeing the eBay auction, and without further proof of legal wrong doing, it is just as possible that the seller told the truth. Maybe the seller did indeed hope that consumers just browsing around for games might hap upon the Thief FM auction and get interested. Not everyone that visits eBay is looking for a specific product. Some are just "looking around". Salesmen are quite accustomed to that phrase and of the non-targeted customer that is just browsing for whatever might catch their desire.

We also lose players who only played the OMs and then left. Maybe they could be lured back by showing there is still life in an old game. Some of these once-time players would've never visited the Eidos web site (to know there are forums). Many would've never visited any of the Theif web sites. And many just don't bother to participate in forums or newsgroups related to the product. So they would never know about FMs or even what the acronym "FM" means. They play, they're done, and they leave because there is nothing more to the game (as they received it). I didn't visit this forum until I had a problem in solving a mission and I was willing to search for help from others rather than toss the game and move on.

Remember that eBay auctions are not just for business. I sell and buy there only for personal wants. One guy auctioned off some pocket change. I didn't follow the auction but heard that the closing bid was a LOT higher than the actual monetary value. Bidding is the buyer's choice to establish a final value. If the potential buyer feels the starting bid is too high or the current bid is too much then they don't bid. After all, and assuming the premise that these Thief player already know about the Thief forums and web sites and would've already known about getting the FMs on CD media from another player, there would've been no bids. If someone overbids, they may have a reason. I sold an Eskimo handmade chess set that I figured might go for up to $80 USD. It sold for over $700 because 2 collectors vied over getting it. They both collect rare or unusual chess sets and were willing to put a value on my set that far exceeded my expectations and (to me) the value of just the materials. If a user decided that the Thief FMs on CD were more valuable than just the material and shipping cost, well, that's their decision. I've put bids on items and been outbid by others that ended up paying more than the in-stock store price. If someone wanted to overpay you for something that you were selling, are you going to refuse? You're selling your house for $150K. Some super rich guy offers you $1M. Yeah, like you're going to say No.

Just because the person used eBay doesn't mean they were doing something illegal just because the product would be free through another venue. Several "publishers" distribute government documents and charge for their "service". The documents would be free if obtained from the government (and, no, not all are available through that Phoenix outlet for the gov't). This is not illegal since the "service" is finding and collating the documents for the customer. Sure, if the user doesn't want to pay they go get it for free and do the work themselves; otherwise, they pay someone else. If the buyer wants a cheaper price then it's up to them to hunt around. When you are looking for a new hard drive, do you claim someone selling it for 10 times the price of the lowest seller is doing something illegal?

Does anyone here have some links to copyright law? I don't remember that it was based on profit. That is, I don't remember it says that redistributing copyrighted material (as your own) is legal when you don't make a profit but illegal when you do make a profit (which would exceed the cost of your "services" to procure and deliver that material so there would be no "profit"). In one case, you have Komag or other helpful taffers providing the FMs on CD for free or for a minimal "charge" (that presumably does not incur a profit). In another case, you have *buyers* determining the value of that same service at an eBay auction. If it is illegal for someone to charge for delivering the Thief FMs then I would think it would be just as illegal for someone to deliver the same material for free. For example, pirating of software never requires profit. Pirating without profit is still pirating. Copying your Windows onto CDs and redistributing them, complete with product codes, to other users is still pirating even if you charge nothing for them and even you paid for the shipping. So the fact that someone at eBay was letting the buyers decide on the value of the same service they might find somewhere else for free doesn't necessarily make it illegal.

Remember that you can still be legal but morally wrong (depending on who is doing the moral measuring). If it turns out that the seller at eBay was legal in redistributing the Thief FMs for whatever the buyers decided was the value for this service then usually these types of complaints are from those who are whining because they didn't think of it. Some people are natural entrepreneurs. Most are not.

[Bat-mite]

So, Munin, you really believe that your prior post is still your property? Publishing content by simply putting it out there and passively wishing that you retain ownership doesn't give you ownership. Just because you say you own it doesn't make it so. The bank that provides a loan for your new car obtains the deed for it. When you pay it off, you obtain the deed for it. When you publish a book, you obtain the copyright for it. When you want to prevent others from copying your product or identity, you get a trademark. You don't just assume ownership through passivity. You do something active, you commit some action, which is usually separate of the item itself, to prove your ownership. You don't remain passive and just hope that others allow you to keep it as your asset. I've never heard of self-copyrighting content simply because it got created. Sounds more like something from the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" fiction.

I guess you didn't go to the link that GBM so generously provided? Here's the full text:


When does Copyright Protection begin, and what is required?


Copyright protection begins when any of the above described work is actually created and fixed in a tangible form.

For example, my brother is a musician and he lives in the United States. When he writes new lyrics, he prints them out on paper, signs his name at the bottom with the Copyright © symbol to show that he is the author, places it in an envelope and mails it to himself without opening it. His copyright begins at the moment he puts his idea in a tangible form by printing the lyrics out on paper. He creates proof when he mails it to himself - the postmark establishes the date of creation. He then registers his copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office which is a requirement in order to sue for monetary damages should a violation of his copyright arise. However, if somebody copies and redistributes his lyrics without permission before his copyright is registered, he still has the right to assert a copyright claim as the true author.

The above applies to digital art and graphics. Open a gif or jpg file that you created and look at the properties. It states the date that you saved it to your hard drive as the date of creation. If somebody copies a graphic from your web site I assure you that the date of creation on your copy of the file is earlier than the copy taken off your web site. If that still doesn't feel like enough proof for you, save everything to a floppy disk and mail it to yourself via certified mail. Keep the envelope sealed, wrap it in protective plastic and put it in a safe place.

Somebody once asked if it was "illegal" to place the copyright © symbol next to your name if you have not registered your copyright. Unless you have stolen the work from somebody else and you are not the true author of the work, it is not illegal to place the copyright © symbol next to your name - it is your right to do so.

The proper way to place a copyright notice is as follows: Copyright © (first date of creation) (name of owner). Like this: Copyright © 2002 John Smith.

[Munin the Raven]

Here's the link you're looking for, Vanguard: http://www.loc.gov/copyright/
It's very complete and easy to read.

Here's what I was talking about:
"Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. "Copies" are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm. "Phonorecords" are material objects embodying fixations of sounds (excluding, by statutory definition, motion picture soundtracks), such as cassette tapes, CDs, or LPs. Thus, for example, a song (the "work") can be fixed in sheet music (" copies") or in phonograph disks (" phonorecords"), or both."

The people in the web design/technical writing fields I mentioned generally take this to mean that when an individual puts something up on their personal web space for the first time it's automatically copyrighted even though it isn't registered. I have no idea what types of technicalities are involved.

And here's an internal link from that Library of Congress site regarding online copyright:
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ66.html

An interesting point about online material is that it's usually updated (such as a web comic that's updated daily), it can't simply be registered in one shot; each updated form is considered separate and needs to be separately registered. This is a real pain in the rear for online cartoonists.

As for my post above being my property? Of course it isn't! I posted it on EIDOS web space and have no rights to it at all. Doesn't the TOA state that anything posted in these forums automatically becomes EIDOS property? I should have clarified that, as I was thinking more in terms of personal web space (which again, there are a lot of technicalities with).

I'd rather not get into any more detail because the whole "intellectual property" issue is in such debate right now that this will just get dragged on indefinitely. However, I do see your point Vanguard. It wasn't illegal because an otherwise free good was being auctioned, although GBM is probably right that selling FMs for any price, even to cover shipping costs, is illegal. So while hammering this guy for moral reasons may be appropriate, there's nothing more illegal about what he was doing than Komag distributing FM CDs for the cost of shipping.

[Munin the Raven]

OK Bat-mite, so it isn't just me then.

However, it's very important to note that the protections gained automatically are more limited than actual registered protection.

Well, I don't see anything in the TOA that's specific to who owns the rights to what's posted here, but since EIDOS has the right to change or modify or remove anything posted here, I assume that individual posters have no rights to what they post unless it's already copyrighted (for example, if I link to a picture from my personal website).

[Bat-mite]

Agreed. I think that if you were in the process of registering with the copyright office, and you had some other proof of the date of your creation, the latter would suffice even if the former were not yet complete.

[yubetcha]

Originally posted by Bat-mite

...he prints them out on paper, signs his name at the bottom with the Copyright © symbol to show that he is the author, places it in an envelope and mails it to himself without opening it.



This has a name. It is known as a poor man's copyright, and it is a valid copyright.

[yubetcha]

Oh, and BTW, I remember that Komag delayed mailing the CDs until he could get signed releases. Some of us even wished that he would hurry and get them, so that we could get the CDs.

[Vanguard]

Thanks for the links. I didn't see them because I wrote my long-winded post, got sidetracked for sometime, then came back to hit Submit. Several posts came in during the interim. I'll take a look at the links.

However, as regards to something being pseudo-copyrighted before it actually gets registered, this I don't believe. I know there have been battles over who registered the same technology on the same day. The difference between the submissions was 2 hours and the submission first received got registered and the 2nd one rejected. Both inventors had been working on the same invention for a long time, they both overlapped each other's work, they didn't know anything about each other and their work was completely independent, and they submitted their requests almost at the same time but one won and the other didn't. (I wish I could recall the particular story about this.) I didn't even matter that the one that lost the request for registration had worked on the same invention longer and had better documentation than the one that won.

In any case, my argument that you must perform some action separate of the item itself seems to ring true. The writing down on the lyrics and mailing them only accounts for the requirement that you document your product which you can use as proof AFTER you have obtained registration.

As regards to anything in the FMs being the property of EIDOS, are any of the files distributed in the FMs actually part of the game itself? I thought these were user data files and totally separate of the game. If I write a document using Word, the resultant document does incorporate the proprietary formatting of the data within the file but the file is NOT the property of Microsoft simply because I used that product to generate the user data file. Sure, the textures within the user data files for the FM might've originated at EIDOS, but so is the raw code in a .doc file written in Word for bolding, italicizing, tabulation, and such. The music software developer doesn't own the music that got composed using it. The Thief 2 license.txt says:
<blockquote>When you publicly distribute your level you automatically grant Looking Glass Studios the perpetual, royalty free right to use, modify, license and distribute your level in any way we choose.</blockquote>
They do mention that you grant them the right to license your level. I don't know if that means they get to own it or just to control any distribution of it. Sounds like they believe they can own anything generated using their product. When push came to shove, do you think Microsoft, an even more huge company, is going to claim that everything you write using Word, Excel, or any other their products automatically becomes their property? That's why they are called "user" data files; they were created by the user (with the use of the tool) and are considered separate of the tool. I can't find a copy of Microsoft's EULA for their Office product, but even if they had a similar statement as EIDOS, do you think anyone cares, including the courts? That would be like the maker of the hammer claiming that they own your house because you used their tool to build it. I know many have claimed that if you sign a contract that you have agreed to all of its stipulations. That is true as long as it does not contradict law. It really boils down to whether EIDOS would want to waste their time trying to enforce a very questionable condition, and whether you would want to wast the time and money in court defending yourself. Many contracts are written with conditions that cannot be legally enforced and are only there to coerce the users to obey. Just because they say it doesn't mean they can enforce it. That's why lawyers specialize, some in patent law, some in contract law, because all this gets very complicated and highly interpretative.

As far as $20 automatically incorporating a profit, you need to check on the rates for shipping to some places. I remember some guy wanting to buy a portable digital tuning AM/FM/Cassette player that I was selling at eBay. My auctions specifically say that I will sell only in the U.S. (and my sell conditions also mention that I only ship to the 48 states of the U.S. or that there will be additional charge if shipped to Hawaii or Alaska because they are by airmail instead of overland transportation). He was in the Phillipines and the cost to ship the item was like $35 to his particular area (for shipping and insurance). This was more than the item was selling for. He said he would pay any price - until I checked on the shipping rate (plus I didn't want to ship there and he didn't have a form of payment that I would accept). There are places on this planet where shipping costs are extreme. If no carrier normally goes to a destination, you would have to contract someone to go there and that would be extremely expensive. Who delivers to the peak of Mount Everest that would charge the same as standard carriers would charge to deliver to major populaces around the world with all modes of transporation in place?

Guess I'll be busy for awhile perusing the provided links. However, because all of this is so fuzzy, it's probably best to consult a lawyer practiced in the topic (Pre-Paid Legal is pretty cheap and usually can give answers without having to resort to contracting a lawyer specific to your request.)

[Xcom]

Originally posted by Vanguard
However, as regards to something being pseudo-copyrighted before it actually gets registered, this I don't believe. I know there have been battles over who registered the same technology on the same day.


I think in this example two inventors were applying for a patent.
And I think it's not exactly the same as copyright.

[Munin the Raven]

I say the same thing as Xcom. There's a difference between patents and copyrights. Like it says on that Library of Congress site, an idea cannot be copyrighted.

[BrokenArts]

Not to get sidetracked here, this makes me think, though slightly different, all of the government red tape you go through during the process. What a pain in the arse filling a trademark is.
I filled for Broken Arts, "Let us mend your Broken Arts" Which is now trademarked. :) You know how long it took to do that? A year and a half. Pfft. :eek: Its all down now. I have hanging on my wall, a diploma looking parchement, yup, it's mine, it's legal. :rolleyes:

[Bat-mite]

Copyrights are pretty simple. You fill out a form (downloadable), drop it and a copy of your work into an envelope, and mail it to the copyright office. Bingo.
;)

[Vanguard]

Xcom, I think you're right that it was about getting beat out by a couple hours on a patent. I hate when I remember only some of a story but not enough to even do a Google search to find it again.

[BrokenArts]

Originally posted by Bat-mite
Copyrights are pretty simple. You fill out a form (downloadable), drop it and a copy of your work into an envelope, and mail it to the copyright office. Bingo.
;)

I didn't say it wasn't simple. :p It's still a pain in the arse, for the trademark. They have to investigate your case, etc, etc, blah, blah. Have you gone through the government bureaucratic up the poop shoot red tape? Ooohh you should try it, what fun.;)

[theBlackman]

The so-called "poor mans copyright" is not a "valid" copyright. All copyrights must be filed with the proper forms with the government copyright office.

If you invent something, or write a screenplay, or song etc. and put a dated copy in a sealed envelope and mail it to yourself, then DO NOT OPEN it or have it held by a lawyer, it can be used as evidence of "prior discovery".

This is useful if you have presented the item (invention) script, or song to a producer/promoter/manufacturer and that entity turns you down, then proceeds to "market" your idea or product without contracting with you.

You then have evidence to pursue a court action for theft of property.

[yubetcha]

What I meant was that it is valid because no one but the creator can claim it for their own. Hence "copyright". They wouldn't put copyright in the name for nothing.

[Xcom]

Originally posted by Vanguard
Xcom, I think you're right that it was about getting beat out by a couple hours on a patent. I hate when I remember only some of a story but not enough to even do a Google search to find it again.

http://www.inventionmysteries.com/article1.html

:p

[theBlackman]

Originally posted by yubetcha
What I meant was that it is valid because no one but the creator can claim it for their own. Hence "copyright". They wouldn't put copyright in the name for nothing.

If I recall correctly, the "copyright" in the phrase was invented by early users of the method. Like many usages in ''common" language that have been adopted, it is not a "legal" phrase.

In essence, it is like "rad", or "Awesome" or "Ass-kickin". It has dropped into common usage, but like the above examples, has no standing except as a descriptive identifier.

They could have used: "Personal intellectual property protector" instead. How-some-ever, the phrase as used is easily recognized even by those muddling members of the public at large who have no dealings with Copyright law, or an interest in the whys and wherefors.

[yubetcha]

Originally posted by theBlackman
If I recall correctly, the "copyright" in the phrase was invented by early users of the method. Like many usages in ''common" language that have been adopted, it is not a "legal" phrase.

In essence, it is like "rad", or "Awesome" or "Ass-kickin". It has dropped into common usage, but like the above examples, has no standing except as a descriptive identifier.

They could have used: "Personal intellectual property protector" instead. How-some-ever, the phrase as used is easily recognized even by those muddling members of the public at large who have no dealings with Copyright law, or an interest in the whys and wherefors.

:confused: I don't remember saying that it was a legal term. Of course I realize that it means nothing if it isn't sent somewhere to an organization (a recognized one). I just didn't go into detail. I realize that if I write a great opus or a fantastic play, the best that the world has ever seen in all of its history, mail it to myself, and let it sit in my garage or attic for 500 years, then it's the same as if I never wrote one, as far as the world is concerned. I didn't say that, however, because I thought that it was obvious. But by the same token, I am the ONLY one with proof of ownership. :)

And BTW, LAG is STILL waiting. (Yubetcha taps fingers on table and then twiddles thumbs. Looks around the room as he whistles a made-up tune)

[RicknMel]

Originally posted by yubetcha
(Yubetcha taps fingers on table and then twiddles thumbs. Looks around the room as he whistles a made-up tune)

*Rick jots down the tune that Yubetcha is whistling......records a demo....sells it to a record exec for millions...and lives happily ever after.*

"Whew...good thing Yubetcha didn't mail that song to himself or I'd be in trouble!!!"

:D
:p
;)

[theBlackman]

Originally posted by RicknMel
....or I'd be in trouble!!!"

:D
:p
;)

You were in trouble loonnngg before that! :D

Good to see your smiling face again. Looks like the computer is viri free and up and running.

[Muzman]

Wow, how did this get so long?
Shouldn't someone mention that Dromed isn't anything like Word or Photoshop. The latter two are tools that work with pre existing media and methods, incorporating them in a digital form with open standards. To license them in such a way as to pretend that you invented the medium would be not only legally questionable but business suicide. Dromed on the other hand is a proprietary tool for a proprietary environment (namely the Dark Engine), as such limited licensing is reasonable and above all, possible.

I'd like to see someone make a Thief FM some other way though. Other games had various third party editors (like Quake 1&2) but this was mainly because the original editors were opened to an extent. The dark Engine and Dromed are hand in glove, the renderer, physics, sound and AI deeply intertwined (it seems), it's not a question of arranging textured geometry and placing items, or even using a basic scripting language to add new things. It'd be quite an achievement.

Oh and I don't think posting here means Eidos gets all your words for their own (despite what many agreements say these days abouting owning your firstborn etc ;) ). If someone were to, say, use your words in defamatory manner or to misrepresent you etc etc you'd have some recourse.

[Caradavin1]

I don't know as much as some of you do, but I remember running into a site where a game that was not Thief related (except the exoskeletons of figures) was being created for purchase by some people who had gotten together...or something. (sigh)

Anyway, the skins looked pretty cool, and I could imagine people purchasing it. Shakespeare's works weren't completely original but people paid to see them. I know thats not the same, but it was an enhancement or addition to the original. Doesn't that somehow make it his own?

[yubetcha]

Originally posted by Caradavin1
I don't know as much as some of you do, but I remember running into a site where a game that was not Thief related (except the exoskeletons of figures) was being created for purchase by some people who had gotten together...or something. (sigh)

Anyway, the skins looked pretty cool, and I could imagine people purchasing it. Shakespeare's works weren't completely original but people paid to see them. I know thats not the same, but it was an enhancement or addition to the original. Doesn't that somehow make it his own?

Many years ago, my brother was reading a book. He said that the author rewrote parts of the Bible so they were easier to read. He said that it read like a comic book. He didn't go into specifics, but the author of this book and the publishing company received most of the proceeds from the sales. And it's the same with other works that are changed in some way, depending on agreements and licenses. If it's value added, then the person adding the value is usually, but not always, compensated, along with the body who owns the rights to the original. When Weird Al Yankovic recorded Like a Surgeon, he probably had to pay Madonna and anyone else who owned the rights to the original, but some of the proceeds went into his own pocket. And sometimes the cut doesn't seem fair. I read about the guy who invented the microwave. He had 150 patents, but because he worked for a company, he only received $1 per patent. The company got the rest. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten the larger percentage, but his agreement with the company didn't say that. I'm sure that it's the same with those skins. He created something, so he was probably compensated for his effort. I don't know for sure, but he probably had to split the income with someone else. When the guy was trying to sell FMs on eBay, he didn't add any value, so he was trying to sell something that he had no right to sell. And I think that the licenses don't allow anyone but the originator to receive anything anyway, so perhaps he couldn't anyway. So it all depends on rights, licenses and agreements.

Yubetcha sneaks into Rick's recently built mansion, and drugs a sleeping Rick. Then, with the help of friends, he puts all of the living room's contents into a large moving van. He then does the same with the kitchen, bathrooms and 15 car garage. He then puts 2 store mannequins, one male and one female, into Rick's bed with him, under the covers, and wishes he could see Rick's face when he wakes up.
:D

[BrokenArts]

B.F.N.P.R. cause I am bored. :p Too much coffee, makes me twitchy as ell'