The last time I commented on the state of Medievia and it's role in copyright infringement and the such I was called a slut and my family was threatened. At that point I decided to no longer "enlighten" the users of this forum with my thoughts on that topic. Forgive me for looking out for my own welfare and that of my family. As I said, If you want to know about that, email Vryce, I'm sure he'd love to enlighten you.

Well, you're still posting here - so presumably either you don't really feel that your welfare is threatened, or you've got your priorities skewed, one of the two.

In all seriousness, the aforementioned ranting nutjobs aside - while I certainly agree with and understand their sentiment, I find their presentation a bit overwrought and in poor taste - why the reluctance to answer my question?

You're a clever girl - masters' degree, as I recall? I highly doubt you're underqualified to answer the question - intellectually, anyway.

You asked if any of us wanted to know how Medievia handles its "gods." I asked what you'd do if you found out one of your gods absconded with your code and was using it to make profit, sans any credits or mention of your game.

Seems like a reasonable question in light of your invitation to me.

Soleil wrote: June 04 2005,17:27    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What a touching sobstory from the 'innonetly punished'.

I hope nobody is gullible enough to fall for it. Soleil may be banned from Mudlab in her capacity of Promotion Manager of the code-stealing mud Medievia, for the simple reason that the mere displaying of the word Medievia, especially in connection with direct links to its webpage, is offensive to a large number of the posters there.

This should not have come as a great surprise to Soleil, since it has been repatedly stated that it was the main reason why they left this Forum to start a new one.  Consequently her mere presence there can be regarded as an intentional provocation, of the same sort as certain people here repeatedly posting flame-bait and then feigning wounded innocence when actually flamed in return. I'd say that she got exactly what she asked for and expected.

However, as for her not being alllowed to read any posts on that Forum, there was, and is, nothing to stop her from reading the boards or even taking part of the discussions under a different name, as long as she doesn't mention Medievia. But since her only interest in that and other boards is to post promotional stuff about Medievia, that is probably not going to happen. So far there have been no posts from her in these boards either that hasn't has as the sole purpose to either to promote or defend it.

She obviously isn't interested in Mud development, she is just interested in getting more players for Medievia.

Well, part of our MUD's development is the art of getting new players, the best ways to go about it, marketing techniques, etc. It is my JOB to get us new players. Forgive me for doing it.

And btw, no I cannot go to mudlab to read the posts at all. My IP has been banned from even going there. I get this message as soon as I try to go to the forums: " You have been banned from this forum. Please contact the webmaster or board administrator for more information." When I click on "register" to try and register under a new name, I get the same message. So, I cannot view the boards or create a new account under a different username as you suggest.

Ah, okay - I think I see.

In other words, you'd probably haul the thief into court for having the audacity to violate your protected copyright.

Copyright protection, incidentally, provided to all original creative works, whether explicitly copyrighted or not.

Interesting.

As I've stated multiple times, I don't know if this would happen at all. That would be Vryce's call to make. Don't twist my words to make them fact. Here's his direct email if you aren't getting my point here -

I'm not sure Vryce would be able to sue the operator of a MUD for infringing his copyright and failing to give credit to him, largely because the balls required for such an astounding act of hypocrisy would prohibit him from walking there.

Soleil: Regardless of your interpretation of the license, could you answer the question of why Medievia refuses to acknowledge the DIKU team in the game's credits, given the role they played in making Medievia possible?

Your IP is not banned. You simply asked the forum to autologin when you originally registered. Since your username was banned, you thus receive that message. If you clear your cookies (Tools -> Internet Options -> Delete Cookies), you should have no trouble reading the forums.

As for new user registrations, I had the *@medievia.com email address banned from activating new accounts to stem further trouble. Since you have indicated a desire to register a new username not affiliated with the source of the troubles, I have removed that email ban. Email addresses are hidden, so I see no harm in that.

I followed the link to "How Medievia Got Started" and just can't get past a few things:

In the Medievia IV section - you say:

"The first thing Vryce decided to do was wipe the world and rethink it all."

and then in the same paragraph:

"We ended up recoding most of the game yet again"

Which was it then? Did you wipe the world, or merely recode "most" of the game, leaving the rest as it was - which was (by the webwriter's own admission), a Diku/Merc deriv?

Which part of that paragraph is a lie? The first part or the second?

In the next paragraph, there's this:

"Medievia IV again was much more than a re-tool."

So - Medievia IV is "re-tool plus?" That would mean it IS a re-tool, with additional stuff besides just the usual re-tool (whatever a usual re-tool is - I'm not a coder).

I'm looking at this from a layman's point of view here. If I called myself "more than a carpenter" it would mean I -am- a carpenter - but I can do things above and beyond whatever criteria defines "carpenter" in addition to those things.

If I call my job "more than a cashier," then it means I -am- a cashier, but I deliver extra value to either my customer or my boss, *in addition to the usual cashier duties.*

More than a re-tool means the same. It means - you admit to doing a re-tool - you admit to using DIKU as the basis of your code, but you have added things to it to make it more than what it started from.

Guess what - so does EVERYONE who uses Diku as their basis. That's what makes them derivitives rather than just plain stock code. So - by reading your most informative history page, I can only conclude that your administration is well-aware of the fact that they started out as Diku/Merc, continued with Diku/Merc derivitives, and have diluted the original code-base to its current incarnation, which is -still- a derivitive of the original stock, no matter how many fancy doo-dads you add to it.

A purple and pink polka-dotted silk chiffon pleated skirt with a broad green velvet hem - is still a skirt. If you got your pattern from Simplicity, no matter what material you use, and no matter what zippers or buttons you add to make it interesting, it's still a Simplicity pattern skirt.

A text-based interactive roleplaying game with bells and whistles and neato new classes and libs and blah blah blah - is still a mud. And no matter what codebase you use to redesign the original, no matter what doodads you add that didn't come with the original, yours is still a Diku/Merc deriv.

You can find more interesting information on 'how it got started' with a :

[code] Date ; Tue, 21 Sep 93 02;13;38 EDT
Sender;
Name ; Medievia
Addr ; 129.32.32.98 4000 (bigboy.cis.temple.edu 4000)


Theme ;
Based in a post apocalyptic future, where technology was lost in two
cataclysmic galaxy spanning wars, the mud is a fantasy based mud, with the
intention of introducing technology into the game's theme in the future.
"The Story of Medievia" is available on the mud in the general store for
the full details on the background.


History;
Original concepts by Michael A. Smith, based on Merc 1.0 code, with
modifications by Michael A. Krause and future modifications to be added by
another programmer. A "War Of The Gods" has caused a great deal of
problems with the mud's operation, at this time the administrator is in
the process of trying to help resolve those problems. The Programmer is
being replaced, and many of the gods are being dismissed and new ones
added to replace them.


Other;
See the Medievia Story, Faq, and other texts on the mud itself for
more detailed information.


Medievia was placed online in Feburary of 1993, officially went up
"non-test basis" on April 1st (April Fools Day, we should have anticipate
the problems! ugh! ;)).


Original Implimentors; Highlander (Michael A. Smith /
)
Balor (Anthony Rowley /
)
Vryce (Michael A. Krause) [Code work]
address withheld due to his replacement.


Current Implimentors; Highlander (see above)
Balor (see above)
A programmer to be named shortly.


For more information, send me mail.
/ [/quote]

Jesus christ, can't you people stop arguing for one goddamn second? Do you listen to yourselves? No matter how much either side argues, whether it's about how 'Medievia is the spawn of Satan and all its players shall burn in the fiery pits of ####' or how 'IRE is owned by the tobacco industry and is teaching 5-year olds how to smoke and murder each other. Oh, and Matt is the Anti-christ', you're not going anywhere. There's no way you're going to convince the other side that you're right, whether you are or not, so just drop all this bull****.

And yes, there are posts at MUDconnector comparing IRE to the tobacco industry and saying that they purposely 'target' children to get them addicted to their games. Idiots.

Now which one of you is going to accuse me of being Matt/Medievia's (The new Axis of Evil, I guess) lapdog, and point out that I'm obviously being paid by them to help prop up their reputations and keep the fact that they are really netherbeasts forged of nightmares that bathe in the blood of virgins under wraps.

I'm being sarcastic, by the way, but I know half of you are too blind to realize that and the other half are trying to figure out who it is I'm insulting. The answer to that question is ALL OF YOU.

Thanks.

I'd imagine they would, because they would be harmed.

If the DIKU guys had actually suffered harm, I'd imagine they'd haul accused (as that's all they are, accused) code thieves into court too.

--matt

There're no ifs about it, unfortunately.

Copyright protection isn't solely economic in nature - it's about protecting the author's right to the sanctity of his work after allowing the public to benefit intellectually from its release and dissemination.

Simply because it wasn't economically feasible for the DIKU authors to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to come to the States, hire a lawyer, and prosecute Vryce & co. as they rightfully deserve doesn't mean what they did was any less wrong, any more than a pursesnatcher is absolved from moral cuplability because the old lady he targetted is too frail to pursue him.

In fact, if anything, I'd say an added level of moral reprehensibility attaches to people who target those who obviously can't do much to stop them.

Doesn't that basically boil down to, "Agree with our point of view or be labeled offensive and banned?" I mean, I realize that some of the founding users of that forum (not you...I don't know anything about you) do tend to have an "Agree with me or I'll never stop attacking you" kind of view, but shouldn't that be their problem rather than the problem of people presenting alternative viewpoints?

--matt

So what punishments are available to a copyright owner who proves in court that someone is violating his or her copyright? Anything beyond economic? If not, it's pretty tough to claim that copyright law isn't about economic harm I think.

So what harm did they suffer? Quantify it for me?
--matt

Well, remember: economic damages are precisely that - economic remedies provided in the face of non-economic harm in an attempt to make the plaintiff whole.

You don't bring a wrongful death suit because the only damage done to you and your family is economic. Yes, that's a part of it - but there's certainly much less tangible damage done, and this is recognized not only by the severity of the economic damages awarded, but also by the possibility of punitive economic damages as well. Since the decedent can't be brought back from the dead, money's the next best thing, basically (and unfortunately).

Continuing with this analysis, the harm inflicted and the economic damages recoverable as a result in court in the case of copyright infringement can be two entirely separate issues as well.

Economics factor into the damages awarded - so things like profit from illegal dissemination can increase the awarded damages, but you don't actually need to make profit from illegally disseminating work in order to be a copyright infringer.

Therefore, there's some other less tangible interest besides economics that's protected by copyright law. This is evinced by things like nominal damages and statutory minimums - even if you don't make any profit at all from the infringement, you can still be found liable.

In my opinion, this "less tangible" interest is a tacit recognition of the moral ownership of an author to her work - it'd be tough to classify it as anything else since, as I noted, it isn't necessarily economic.

Yes, that makes sense. In a wrongful death suit, there's a lot of emotional harm done to the family aside from any direct economic consequences.

But what harm was done to the DIKU authors if the allegations against Medievia were proven to be true? I mean, the only offence that seems to hold any water against them is that they don't have the DIKU author credits on the main page. Ok, maybe the DIKU authors suffered minimal emotional ego harm from not having the credits on one of a few hundred DIKU-derived MUDs, but come on. I, for one, am really glad that there IS a barrier to entry in the legal system. I don't want to see people able to sue for truly minor harm and really, I don't care. I know I inflicted WAY more emotional harm on my ex-girlfriend by breaking up with her than Medievia could ever dream of inflicting on the DIKU authors. Yes, I don't know them, but I think it's pretty reasonable to guess that they weren't all broken up about it. I mean, consider how much effort they've expended trying to vilify Medievia and get them banned from sites X, Y, and Z. Oh wait, they haven't.

--matt

Well, in this specific case, I will definitely concede that the emotional harm is probably pretty minimal. I know if I were in their place I'd probably be ticked off enough to waste the resources prosecuting these guys, especially after all this time, and their attitude through it all - but, I generally am pretty quick to tell people where to stick it when they try walking all over me, and in a case like this with these economics that isn't necessarily the most reasonable thing to do.

However.

Having said that, I think this would make a pretty decent copyright infringement case, if one combines very clear-cut evidence of infringement (assuming for the sake of argument that this still exists and/or can be found), the absolutely unapologetic posture of the offenders, and the economic windfall they've obtained through their wrongdoing.

I don't have much of a head for numbers, but it's my understanding that Vryce and Soleil raise a family solely based on their income from this game, and that they've been doing so for some time now.

I couldn't tell you exactly how this will factor into the damages equation, but given that their infringement was what enabled them to reap these sorts of profits I imagine they would certainly play a part.

Why is it that the "Flames are bad" posts are inevitably the angriest ones?

I agree with this sentiment in principle. Here's the thing though: we all know that the people involved in this are not really going to just give up and tolerate what they think is a hostile presence. It's been going on for, what, 10 years? And there's no end in sight. So here are the options:

1. Remove the inevitable and constant flames, but allow Soleil to continue posting. Wait for the exodus (see TMS). I don't find this appealing, as I think a lot of the members who have serious Medievia problems are otherwise very high quality contributors.

2. Do nothing and let the flame warriors dominate the place. See RGMD.

3. Ban Soleil. While I don't personally like this option (honestly, you could be a serial killer for all I care and it would make no difference), I don't think the contributions of one person outweigh those of all the others who would end up leaving or spending all their time on flamewars. It sets a bad precedent, though.

This is actually similar to what happened on TMC a few years back with Grem, who was banned for being "disruptive" despite the fact that he would get flamed for posting anything at all. I didn't think that was fair either. That eventually cooled off and he's been contributing on mudlab, with no flames so far. Of course it helps that the whole 'translation of ROM to blitz basic' claim really was false.

I hope that eventually the community will be able to put this to rest, but it's a dim hope. This idea that Medievia is harming the community is just a self fulfilling prophecy, even if there is an underlying truth to it.

I completely agree with you in that a case would be decent. However, I think the point that some would be arguing is 'would it be worth it?'

I think that is what Matt's being saying all along. Not that people should break copyright, not that people should steal code, but that the damage done and potential damages from anything like a lawsuit wouldn't be worth the time involved. *shrug*

3 people left TMS that I'm aware of: Molly, Rhuarc, and Tyche. Don't you think that if they were actually so high quality they'd be able to treat a disagreement like what it is and stop the attacking, since it does absolutely nothing but cause problems?


Nod, I understand, from a management perspective, why you'd ban Soleil. It's the route of least resistance. I still don't think I'd be able to stomach allowing an angry mob to run people off what's supposed to be a forum for open discussion on MUDs. I'd tell the mob to go raise their pitchforks elsewhere as here isn't appropriate. And you're right, it sets a bad precedent. I don't plan on joining the forum for other reasons right now(ask me why privately if you care), but that's a pretty slippery slope you're on there. What if I came? Nobody has any grounds to accuse me or IRE of -anything- illegal but that mob doesn't like me either. Would you ban me if they started flaming me for expressing an opposite point of view? Where do you draw the line?

Anyway, they're your forums and it's your decision. I actually think it's an interesting conundrum and though I'd make a different decision, I can understand why you made the one you did. I just don't know how you intend to draw the line in terms of permitting dissent or controversy. It'll come up again once you establish a precedent for banning anyone some of your forum users are willing to spend enough time flaming.

--matt

Well, no, that's not really what I'm saying. I am definitely against any sort of copyright violation, whether you euphemistically call it "fan fiction" or stealing. I am flat-out against it unless the IP owner has either specifically given you permission to use it or is on public record as saying he/she doesn't mind it being used in ways X, Y, and Z.

My argument is that if there was copyright infringement, the damage done to the IP holders is so incredibly minor that it is nothing short of a joke that certain unconnected people have spent -10 years- on a crusade over it. Further, I think this is made crystal clear when you look at the fact that the IP owners don't even bother to take part in this crusade, much less take legal action. Not taking legal action is understandable, but if they actually felt seriously wronged, one might expect some modicum of effort to be expended by them in their 'cause.'

--matt

Ok, so then you can either look at it from a moral point of view if your moral worldview even recognizes the existence of intellectual property (there's certainly nothing about intellectual property that renders it as an inviolate concept morally) or a legal point of view.

If minimal harm is suffered, what's the moral justification for all the outrage?

If it's a legal thing, where's the outrage against the numerous MUDs violating things like the Lucas license? Morally you can make the argument that they are fan fiction and thus ok (even if, in the case of Lucas, his license specifically prohibits running computer services using his IP) but legally one cannot.

I mean, it seems like either you accept that minimal harm is being done in BOTH the cases of Medievia and Shadows of Isildur pre-arrangement-with-Tolkien-Enterprises (and the many other MUDs in similar situations) and thus morally it's pretty much a non-issue or you take a legal tact and decide they're both guilty of violating IP law.

Also, you wrote that it might make a good case, but just because something will make a good case doesn't mean it's warranted either (The legal advice I've gotten has indicated it wouldn't make a good case at all, but 2 lawyers never agree on anything. It's a moot point either way apparently.) I know you're studying to be a lawyer, but I'd personally be a lot happier if there WEREN'T so many lawyers encouraging people to sue each other just because it's possible to do so.
--matt

Several more have been driven away, only not so publicly.

I don't think you can draw much of a conclusion about the amount of signal a poster can generate from this issue. We are dealing with an exceptional case, and thus general conclusions do not apply.

Some of the folks may indeed have a distaste for you, but that's for entirely different reasons than were used to justify the ban on Medievia. As has been explained before, we simply couldn't ask the angry mob (as you put it; I wouldn't call them disorderly at all) to forgive and forget when they believe the actions causing harm are ongoing and that those causing the harm are completely unapologetic.

As Tyche put it:

But then what you're saying is that all that's important is that a group of people is angry about something and that rather than expecting them to deal with dissenting opinions maturely, it's better to just chuck out the dissenter? If a group of people believed that all LPMUDs are somehow causing harm, you'd be willing to ban LPMUD operators based on the same logic?

I mean, what your actions effectively do is either officially sanction mob rule or officially condemn Medievia. That's fine if that's your forums' stance, of course, as it's your forum, but it also kind of casts some doubt on the "open discussion" claim. Again, I'm not attacking your decision. I have no stake in it and it doesn't affect me either way.

Also, you know, they don't have to forgive and forget. Nobody is asking them to. The thing is, just because you find something distasteful doesn't mean you have to constantly disrupt forums attacking people over it. I think it's not at all unreasonable to expect that people simply hold their tongues. Sun and Microsoft had disputes over FAR more serious issues than this, and yet you'd never see Sun's CEO Scott McNealy bursting out during a press conference calling Bill Gates the devil or making silly analogies between Microsoft's activities and paedophilia. Heck, Microsoft and Sun even worked together on certain things during their otherwise heated dispute? Why? Because they realize that life doesn't revolve around a single issue, and that disagreement doesn't have to mean constant, relentless vilification. And no matter how much they disliked each other, you'd never have seen them reverting to their childhood years with insults like "Microthievia" or "Sungay" or whatever. I mean, I'm not going to name names, but I believe that one of the most frequent flamers as regards Medievia has done a lot of harm to the MUD community over the years. Does that mean I should initiate flames against this person constantly because of my belief? I tend to think it's my problem to deal with, not his/hers.

--matt

Medievia's examples are all documented fact. Soleil does not represent a mere difference of opinion. The case is really crystal clear, and because of that it is the poster-boy example of copyright infringement in this community. A general analogy that does not include this essential information is simply not enough to generate the moral imperative in this case.

Please take note: Soleil was not banned because people were angry at her. Soleil was banned because people were angry with her, and there was no way we could ask them to forgive the ongoing infringement that was one of the reasons the forum was created in the first place.

As stated in my last post, Medievia is an exceptional case that warrants an exceptional response. Therefore I vote the later, for sufficiently ambiguous definitions of 'officially condemn'.

The forum never was, strictly speaking, about "open discussion". It has had a specific purpose that restricted certain types of discussion from the start -- namely flames, spam, advertising and off-topic posts.

The forum is for high-signal discussion, and the moderation decisions should further that purpose. In this case, I feel they have.

Documented fact on some random forum poster's websites?

The governor of Illinois abolished the death penalty in that state because too many deathrow convictions (which require a level proof that, shall we say, exceeds what has ever been presented against Medievia by quite a lot) were found out to be simply wrong. Is it so inconceivable that some forum posters might actually be wrong about something as complicated as intellectual property and licensing?


I edited my last post and you may have been writing this one as I edited my last one, but see my point in my previous post about nobody asking them to forgive. Since when is there expected to be no barrier between thought and mouth? I don't walk down the street screaming insults at people whose cars bear pro-Bush stickers, and the issues there are so serious as to make Medievia's alleged crimes absolutely, completely inconsequential. What's so difficult about expecting restraint from a group of educated adults? I mean, from my point of view, Bush's actions are crimes against humanity. And yet, I'm able to restrain myself. Surely restraint on such a comparitively minor issue as Medievia should be -easy-.


Wouldn't the fair way to stop flames be to punish the people issuing the flames rather than punish the victim? (Since in the context of the forum, Soleil is the victim, if not in the context of the larger mud community were one to give in to the assumption of Medievia's guilt.)

--matt

Okay, I've got to admit: I've seen the Medievia IV source code personally. I know for a fact that it is derived from Merc 1.0. I realize that it hasn't been 'proven', and perhaps not demonstrated to your satisfaction, but as far as I'm concerned it's indisputable. I am not a lawyer - and thus I don't know the legal details - but I am certainly qualified enough to know a diku mud when I see one. Whether or not there is currently a legal issue (which I believe there is, but again I'm not going to pretend to be an authority), I think it's clear that there is an ethical one.

And no it's not inconceivable that some forum posters might be wrong about intellectual property and licensing. As I said in an earlier post, I do know of an example where they were wrong - the claim that Grem's mud was a version of ROM translated to Blitz Basic.

Fair enough. I don't really want to argue about it anyway; just wanted to clarify my personal perspective.

Sure, yours seems genuine and reasonable. I wish you luck with your forum endeavour.

--matt

And on that note, let's allow this thread to die.

What's your stance on plagiarism?

I suppose what I'm trying to get across is that you can debate quantifiable damages all day, which is well and good - but the ethical issues here (or much of the legal infringement issue, really) have very little to do with them.

I think you'll concede that anyone who engages in plagiarism is engaging in an immoral act and is demonstrating a distinct lack of personal integrity - yes?

Or, put another way: would you have hired me if you knew that I, for example, had taken Tolkien's world, changed around most of the names, used it as the basis for an "all-original gameworld" that I had personally "created," but was never (for whatever reason) taken to court over it by the Tolkien folks?

Taking someone else's work and claiming it as your own is morally wrong - there isn't a whole lot of room for discussion there, I don't think. The fact that they then took this even further and made profit from that wrongdoing exacerbates the offense, but it certainly shouldn't be a measure of its totality - that they did it at all is worthy of reprimand.

About all you can really do is question the degree of moral culpability given the context of the wrongdoing here (i.e. your economic damages argument), and we'll have to agree to disagree there, but I don't think you can debate its actual existence.

Pre-arrangement SoI (and other fanfiction sorts of MUDs for that matter) is quite distinguishable legally and morally on these facts, but as I recall you and I have had this discussion before. <g>

Very nice post, Traithe.

In my field, you'd be fired immediately for putting your name on someone else's work.

I think the plagiarism is indisputable- Medievia clearly violates the letter and spirit of how derivative works are classified, and a number of smoking guns are available detailing how easy it is to tell they are a derivative. They go to the "But we changed stuff!" well.... but every DIKU derivative changed stuff, and they're still derivatives.

The fact that Medievia not only omits mention of the DIKU authors in their credits, but actively slanders their work (see the page linked above) and ignores the mountain of evidence to the contrary (*) is especially appalling. They submitted to an independent code audit, and got exposed for what they are. The bare minimum they could do would be to own up to this, restore the DIKU authors to proper authorship, and admit the MUD was built on a core that was handed to them.

Now, if they could do that harmlessly, I'd bet they would. The problem is that admitting that their MUD is a derivative of DIKU (especially in the face of blatant lies to the public previously on that front) weakens their already-tenuous stance on their license violation.

(*): Things like "Comments signed by the Merc authors still in the code." are pretty damning. How else would those show up in original code with Medievia authors?

is a good resource on that.

In my personal ethical system plagiarism is wrong. Of course, in my personal ethical system, what you were doing with SoI before your arrangement with them is also wrong. I don't claim my ethical system has any primacy over anyone else's or any more legitimacy than anyone else's though.  

Happily, the law tends to side with my personal view on intellectual property most of the time.

--matt

Uhm, I'm not sure this is true.  I don't  remember Vryce offering up our code for inspection, ever.  The code that is out there and that is being used in all the comparisions is, by my knowledge, code that was obtained illegally.  I don't remember if it was someone who hacked in to get it or if one of our gods gave it away, but it was not given by Vryce to someone to audit.  It was so long ago now...

Did you read the link I posted?  Here it is again in case you need to re-read it:  Specifically read where it says that Medievia did start out as DIKU, Merc 1.00 and further down where Vryce explains his stance on DIKU.  I'm sure that you won't be happy with what it says, but there it is.  As I stated earlier, any questions on what's written on that page should be directed to Vryce as it's his writing and his stance.

Unless Vryce is willing to show it to me, I have no idea how I'd see the code that Medievia is currently running. Further, I have no idea if the license restrictions themselves even have any validity at this point. I'm not a lawyer and even if I was, I'm sure other lawyers would have differing opinions. That's what the court systems are for: Resolving those differences of opinion.

What? DIKU doesn't have royalty provisions, and if Medievia just put up the DIKU authors credits, nobody would really have any beef against them unless there's someone out there who has seen their financial statements and knows they're making a profit (and I don't believe any of their detractors can say they have.) The DIKU guys wouldn't get any royalties just because Medievia decided to put up the DIKU authors names.

It wouldn't. Unlike the DIKU founders, I feel our work is worth enough to defend, aggressively. And unlike them, we could suffer real harm. People could lose their ability to pay for health insurance, mortgages, school for their kids, etc. Steal from us and I'd come after the thief in any way possible, legally or otherwise. In fact, I have previously shut down a commercial MUD for violating provisions of a license to use our old Vortex mud engine.

--matt

Or not.  Not is always good. I think Matt's right, Diku doesn't get any royalties. As long as you mention their name you don't have to pay them anything.

Can you people derail some more?

True. What they had was a usage contract and a contract can be renegotiated by both parties to provide for royalties.

I'm not damning anyone. In fact, I find the stipulation to never allow commercial gain off a DIKU derivative to be limiting and harmful.

And yep, I agree with you that if Medevia just put up the DIKU authors credits I think the majority of people would not have any beef against them.

I'm sure most of the DIKU folk poured their blood, sweat and tears into making the lib and only wanted some appreciation in return. Vryce no doubt put in innumerable hours of work as well, and likely most of the code is now original. But even if DIKU was only used as a test harness to recode the majority of the mud, that's still a very significant contribution.

If I had written DIKU back then, I would be proud if one of the most successful muds started with my codebase and was thanking me. All I saw on Medevia's startup page were negative points about how bad DIKU was. Well, it was the one they picked over others, so to them it was the best choice that existed back then to go forward from.

Xotl

Documented fact on some website that just so happens to have a signed statement from Vryce vouching for its authenticity.

There is a fundamental difference between laws and ethics. I reckon the majority of those who have feelings on the subject (myself included) find moral fault with the actions of Medievia.

I have released a couple of codebases to the public domain. Is stripping out the credits and claiming them as your own legal? Yes. Is it ethical by most ethical standards? No.

The veracity of one crime does not diminish that of another. If you'd like to address specific insulting posters then feel free, but you're misunderstanding if you think I am defending the actions of either side. The flames were deleted at the same time Soleil was banned. Both sides have fault: One for breaking the general forum rules, the other for earning such an incredible level of disrespect in the community.

That would be a fair way to stop the flames, surely, but it would not stem the overall disrespect. This is an issue far larger than a mere flame war or two, and any punitive actions taken must keep this in mind.

Sure - and a healthy dose of moral relativism is a good thing, as it's conducive to civilized discussion and peaceful resolution of conflicts in and between socities.

However, what plagiarism really breaks down to is two distinct acts: 1) theft (by depriving the creator of either the work or its concomitant benefits, and accruing them to yourself), and 2) misrepresentation (by intentionally presenting the work as yours when you know it isn't).

Assuming as a given the lack of any reliable moral objectivity, I still challenge you to find a single society or societal set of ethics (i.e. one not inherently opposed to society or the rule of law, such as anarchism) that does not treat these two sorts of acts as immoral ones.

Put another way, I really don't much care that 1% of the world's population or whatever is anarchist and doesn't treat these things as morally wrong. The only people I really care about are reasonable members of society, i.e. the overwhelming majority of the world's population, and in that case an equally overwhelming majority will assert that these two sorts of acts are ethical wrongdoings.

In fact, I suspect that if you ask Vryce and Soleil their stance on theft and misrepresentation, they'd assert in no uncertain terms that both acts are morally wrong. If Soleil's ambivalence and reluctance to answer my very simple and straightforward question earlier in this thread are any indication, I imagine that this sits very uneasily with them in light of their past (and continuing) acts.

Traithe wrote:  June 06 2005,19:43    
Well said, Traithe.

A large number of free muds are traditionally founded, partly or completely, on ‘fan fiction’. This has traditionally been accepted in the Mud community, whereas plagiarism, stealing of code and areas and removing of credits always have been shunned by the same community.

The difference should be obvious to anyone. ‘Fan fiction’ honours and reveres it roots. The reason the mud was started or the area created in the first place is that the creator was so taken with the book or movie that he wants to share his enthusiasm with a greater audience.

They use the original names and settings as a spin-off, and create new material inspired by it. They never try to hide the origin of their inspiration. On the contrary, they try very hard to advertise it, to get more supporters for their favourite author, and more readers for his or her books. The copyright holders are most likely aware of this fact, which could be one reason why they hardly ever respond to direct requests to use their material as theme for a mud. They don’t really mind the free advertising they get. But on the other hand they don’t want to sanction it officially, in case that would set an unwanted precedence, if they some time in the future wanted to allow some commercial game to be based on their work. (This is of course just a personal theory of mine, but a rather plausible one. Why else would they not say plain ‘NO, you are not allowed to do that, and if you do we will sue you for copyright infringement’ when asked directly by a Mud owner?)

A typical fan-fiction mud or area always gives credit to its roots, perhaps worded something like this:

‘This zone/area was inspired by the awesome Lord of the Rings Trilogy by Tolkien. If you are not yet familiar with these wonderful books, you should go and purchase them and read them now. Hopefully this game will inspire you to do so, and in this way give something back to the original that has inspired us to create this mud.’

A code stealer on the other hand does everything to hide the connections to the original that he stole. The first action is of course to remove the credits and copyrights statement, and replace them with his own name. The next task is to go through the code systematically, primarily to change as many of the openly displayed messages as possible, but also to remove all hidden references to the original code, in case someone got hold of their source code. This of course takes a lot of time and effort to do, at the expense of actually developing any new and original additional code. Since the code has so many lines, they sometimes slip up, and leave something incriminating in there by mistake. This is what happened with the amusing references to Tinymuds and its creators that KaVir and the other viewers found when going through the Medievia code.

But this was long ago. By now, over 10 years later, Vryce has had ample time to finish this work, and make sure that there are no lasting references to the code he stole. This is when he proudly announces that Medievia is now ‘totally rewritten’ and ‘100 % original’. Sure, he added a lot of new code too, but however much he adds that never changes the fact that the code still is and always will be a Diku derivative.

And here comes the ultimate insult. Not only does he remove the credits, he also insults the origin in the official history of Medievia, that Soleil so obligingly linked to. Here is how they show their reverence to the code they stole and based on:

‘Medievia is not a DIKU mud. We got our feet wet 12 years ago with a Merc beta release in 1991. That was 26,000 lines of programming, Medievia V is over 450,000 lines of programming. DIKU mud did not work when you used it as it was full of memory leaks, poor design and an architecture that would never scale up to what we needed. DIKU was basically ABER mud re-tooled. Merc then took DIKU code and re-tooled it again.’

... And then Vryce took Merc code and re-tooled it again ...

No wonder Soleil and Vryce will never get any respect on Mudlab, or for that matter from any decent mud developers.
It's like Tony Soprano buying a large house in an respectable neighbourhood and expecting to be regarded as an equal of his neighbours, who all know what his fortune was founded on.