Bungie's Fear/Loathing licence seems to make it that way by insisting that distribution is free and that they're given copyright.
What their licence doesn't say is whether their imposition of copyright nullifies that of the original author, or whether the author has a right to impose further restrictions on distribution. I guess when they wrote the licence they never expected an author to not want their work to be as widely available as possible.
Because its a grey area, it therefore comes back to the moral issue. If the author had stated explicit restrictions when they released the plugin then most if not all of us would feel morally obliged to obey them, depending on what it was. Lets say for instance an author only wanted their plugin on the Mill, perhaps so they could count the number of downloads or something. Would that still apply 3 years later when both the Mill and the author are long gone? Would the author really want their work to disappear?
Its a moot point anyway as I've never heard of a plugin where the author placed such restrictions on its distribution at the outset. There's been plenty of instances where an author has pulled their plugin from a site or hotline later on, usually due to personal issues more than anything else.
My gut feel is that plugins should be available to players, and where its hosted is neither here nor there. The author's readme should be present if at all possible & the work should never be misrepresented. The important thing though is that players have access to it. Hence if the author left no instructions and can't be found, the plugin should be made available. In my opinion
You did misunderstand Alan.
Its not a gray area and it cannot (and does not) override any previous copyrights. Nor does it ask the holder of the copyrights to pass any rights granted by the copyright to anyone else.
See my earlier post about transfering copyrights and ChrisPs follow up.
Plugins can be distributed for free only when you have the permission of the copyright owner(s). Bungie gives their permission for whatever distribution rights they have to it in the little licensing statement and you also need the rest of the rights (the mapmakers) to distribute it.
Would that still apply 3 years later when both the Mill and the author are long gone?
Yes, why wouldn't it...
Would the author really want their work to disappear?
Legally and morally thats not for anyone but the copyright holders/authors to decide. If they truely cared enough that it didn't disappear they would have put a read me with it. And if the players truely cared about it not disappearing, they wouldn't have stripped it.
I happen to agree that players should have the plugins - however its not my right or place to put my beliefs or wants above the artists. I would love it if every mapmaker threw a creative commons license on their work or some similar license. But they usually don't.
Alan, a bunch of laymen opinions probably isn’t the best source for cold hard legal facts, but for what it is worth, I think Samsara is technically correct. However, even cold hard legal facts don’t necessarily describe the legal realities.
For example, while a mapmaker could go through the trouble and expense of suing someone for redistributing their maps, unless they had actually registered their copyright (currently there is a $30 fee to register) and /or someone is making money from the plugin, nothing would happen if the mapmaker won in court - except perhaps that after the months or years it took to resolve the case, as well as the legal expense, the website hosting the map would be court ordered to remove it. From Wikipedia:
There is no requirement that a copyright be officially registered for the author to obtain rights. Registration of works does however, have its benefits: serving as prima facie evidence of a valid copyright and being able to be awarded statutory damages and attorney's fees (whereas works registered after an infringement only receive actual damages and profits).
I also read (sorry couldn’t find where again) that when the copyright infringement is for a not-for-profit purpose, it is more of a hassle for the copyright owner to take legal actions in terms of burdens of proof. I imagine it’s probably structured that way in part to discourage frivolous lawsuits over issues where no one was significantly hurt.
So in most cases, as far as the distribution of Myth plugins, the (U.S.) laws are probably as Samsara states, however, for someone like the typical Myth mapmaker, the net effect of those laws can amount to little results other than a huge waste of time and money. While great fodder for forum flame wars, the stealing of free plugins, or the like, is apparently too petty an issue for U.S. legislators to be overly concerned about. So, for all practical intents and purposes, this whole issue IS a moral/ethical one, and one where my views happen to coincide exactly with Iron’s.
I believe I stated earlier the same thing William basically repeats now: it is ridiculous to discuss this in terms of legalities… though some of us are indeed guilty of enjoying futile exercises in debate.
P.S.
I can’t help but wonder if Clem did, or now will, lay out $30 a pop for each of those maps on his ‘better not touch’ list.
Would that still apply 3 years later when both the Mill and the author are long gone?
Yes, why wouldn't it...
I think if you re-read Iron's question very carefully, it is plainly evident why it wouldn't apply.
Samsara wrote:
Would the author really want their work to disappear?
Legally and morally thats not for anyone but the copyright holders/authors to decide.
So, do you think it immoral of Museums the world over to display anonymous work, or even credited work if the artist did not give specific permission to that particular museum?
being such a small community as we are, I think (and it's my thought...)
that it would be a shame to publish some maps stripping the author's name and wishes.
Thinking of all the effort it takes to make a map, although some of us do it just for fun, and to see it played...it always brings some hapiness to feel our creations stick with our names.
I think to enter in areas where legal matters more than morals, is definitely stripping our comunity of the esence it's made of...human beings, and the essence of what it is...a community.
I totally understand sometimes maps are so old and creators are so long ago gone, and files have been so many times exchanged from hand to hand, that readme's have dissapeared,
still, that doesn't mean we can claim them as one of our creations.
I suggest(in my humble opinion) that if we can't contact the creators, and readme's are gone...basically we can say: author unknown-we tried to contact somehow mapmaker. etc but we coulnd't do it--if anybody knows info about it please let us know to ....blahahablahhh
and that's to be honest...
and I see no reason why we can't play a map that was created for that reason...because of that...
and if the owner refuses to let someone add his/her map to the plugin...well
let's respect the reasons for that...
let's be honest guys...we are how many...100? 110? left...
let's not break myth in 2 and be 50 against 50....
at least on a forum...
let's be 50 against 50 on the game....
ciao...
you get to guard the flag Industry. And don't dare use circle formation or we'll detach all the units to you just as they're about to die, then boot you after the game
:: shouldn't have browsed that playmyth.net thread ::
Would that still apply 3 years later when both the Mill and the author are long gone?
Yes, why wouldn't it...
I think if you re-read Iron's question very carefully, it is plainly evident why it wouldn't apply.
Samsara wrote:
Legally and morally thats not for anyone but the copyright holders/authors to decide.
Their explicit wishes of the author, despite the intent, override what one might *think* the author wants.
So, do you think it immoral of Museums the world over to display anonymous work, or even credited work if the artist did not give specific permission to that particular museum?
If its still under copyright yes. But even then, displaying something and distributing it are two different things.
Though, I'm not sure if theres some sort of fair use law that would apply to displaying copyrighted work in museums...
In any case, its a completely different situation.
To apply it to a museum it would need to be something like:
A museum is giving away free photocopies of So-and-so's latest best seller (which he decided to release on the internet for free as a publicity stunt) upon admission to the museum - without the publishers permission.
Even that though isn't an exact match, since its the publisher is losing money also.
EDIT:
ChrisP is again right on the money about the not listening to opinions of lay people. This isn't to be considered Legal Advice in anyway - I'm not legal expert. Read any of my posts with this in mind =-D
Would the author really want their work to disappear?
Legally and morally thats not for anyone but the copyright holders/authors to decide.
So, do you think it immoral of Museums the world over to display anonymous work, or even credited work if the artist did not give specific permission to that particular museum?
If its still under copyright yes. But even then, displaying something and distributing it are two different things.
Though, I'm not sure if theres some sort of fair use law that would apply to displaying copyrighted work in museums...
So do you equate ethics with what is legal and vice versa? If say, fair use law allowed for a certain type of distribution but the explicit wishes of the author were either violated or unknown, would it be ethical just because it was legal? Personally, I do not equate the law with what is necessarily right or wrong. And not because I need a convenient excuse to justify something I do that's illegal, but because, historically, I can provide plenty of anecdotes of laws that were anything but moral.
By the way, I think my museum example does apply as making copies or merely displaying are still forms of distribution. I used to DJ in a nightclub. Despite that no one took home copies of the music I played, the nightclub still had to pay royalties to ASCAP (American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers) or face being charged for copyright infringement.
Ethics and morality are two different things. Yet both are highly subject to opinion - so any further discussion about the morality of this or the ethics would be silly (well, MORE SILLY than it has already degraded to ;-D ).
As per the museum example, I would think they would be differnt kinds of distribution, but again, I'm not a legal expert and don't know for sure, so should likely shut up. =-D
So, do you think it immoral of Museums the world over to display anonymous work, or even credited work if the artist did not give specific permission to that particular museum?
If its still under copyright yes (...)
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(smart-ass-mode)</span> Franz Kafka ordered to burn his work after his death testamentary. This was prevented by his close friend Max Brod against Kafkas will. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(/smart-ass-mode)</span>
So dont bother reading any of his books, Samsara! :p
On the other hand, this is totally off-topic and I would rather like to know how the mappack is doing?
So, do you think it immoral of Museums the world over to display anonymous work, or even credited work if the artist did not give specific permission to that particular museum?
If its still under copyright yes (...)
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(smart-ass-mode)</span> Franz Kafka ordered to burn his work after his death testamentary. This was prevented by his close friend Max Brod against Kafkas will. <span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>(/smart-ass-mode)</span>
So dont bother reading any of his books, Samsara! :p
On the other hand, this is totally off-topic and I would rather like to know how the mappack is doing?
Phex, Kafka died in 1924
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>And for the record, I dont equate ethics or morality with the law, but I happen to agree with the law in this case.</span>
