"All area files created through the use of this codebase become the property of the game administrator and not the property of the builder. The game administrator is under no obligation to provide copies of area files to builders at any time."

"[Note: The above blurb is taken from the current licensing doc packaged with the source." - the licensing doc being the license to use this codebase.

This is part of the licensing agreement of ACK! MUD.

Offhand, I can say right now that it is illegal. Not only does the phrasing utterly violate copyright law, but it takes away from builders rights quite severely. As well, reading on this, the current ACK! administrator claims that it has been succesfully defended in court - 3 seperate times.

Bullcrap? What? I want more information here - anyone care to comment? KaVir especially?

This could have potentially vast implications on the rest of the community, as well. If this can slide, just how many rights can builders truly have if builders rights can be pre-restricted by the license of the codebase, and not by any agreement or acknowledgement on their part? And if that can happen, what else can happen? While I do support copyright to an extent, I support builders rights more so - even if I can't build worth crap. And this is one of those cases where it is utter and complete crap imo.

-D

P.S. A sidenote, since Orion brought it up. "Property", in this context, transfers "Intellectual Property", also known as IP, or Copyright to the admin of the MUD in question.

Well, it's difficult to say anything but "ME TOO" here, Dulan.

The claim that it's been defended in court looks completely phony - a search on Google didn't turn up any court rulings, but perhaps my criteria are wrong.

But...
Here's the ACK! License as found online, refering to v. 4.3:
I don't see the offending reference here, but as I said, it's v4.3, dated 1998.

Dulan, the clause isn't "illegal", it's just legally worthless. It would be like including a clause which stated "If you get caught cheating, the mud owner has the right to turn up at your house and beat you to death with a spiked club". You could stick it in the license if you liked, but it wouldn't allow you to get away with murder. Equally, the builder DOES still own their property, unless they've explicitly signed away their rights - whoever told you that the license had been successfully defended in court is either lying or has been misinformed (if it had even GONE to court I'm sure we'd all have heard about it, anyway).

The second part of the clause, concerning providing copies of area files to builders at any time, is something which has been debated before, and isn't quite as straightforward. I believe that such a clause is legally valid, even though it's not very nice, but it may depend on the situation.

I could be wrong but, unlike the situation with Diku/GPL where the wording was clear in the phrasing, couldn't this be an attempt by the author not to take the copyright (which can't be taken anyway, in this fashion), but to simply claim ownership of the fixed form of the work. To clarify, an attempt to take ownership of the physical copy, such as a painter's painting, as opposed to the rights to the physical copy, such as a painter's copyright of said painting?

Since it doesn't make a distinction as to which 'property' it is attempting to assume ownership of (the fixed form, or the rights to said fixed form), I would think the intent of the licensor would be a very necessary step in the process of making that distinction...

Some see at as an attempt to steal the copyright, while others may see it as an attempt to retain ownership of the work created on/for their MUD.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

tell her to provide the docket number or case citation. I can go look up either and check. Until she does that, I won't believe her because I have never seen any Mud mentioned in a case before.

Not to argue the points any, but I see this as almost the same as if you create an entry for a contest. Usually the rules state that all submissions become the property of the contest sponsor and will not be returned. The statement where it says "not the property of the builder" is fishy to me.

I can also see the "no obligation to provide copies of area files to builders at any time" being there to protect the admin and the other builders from disgruntled builders. If more than one person worked on an area, do all contributers have rights to the whole area? Also, the person could keep demanding this file, then that file, and so on. Just to be a pest.

The statement allows the admin to use the area and to modify it as they see fit. But that doesn't mean the original builder can't make a copy of the code and write it down or something (I don't code so I don't know how much of a task this would be to do) and use it again somewhere else. I agree the original author shouldn't have to give up complete rights to the area.

Anyway, that all could be mute because the builder knows up front what the deal is and by creating the area using that codebase, they are agreeing to the terms.

This could be where the admin is coming from, but it still doesn't explain the defended in court three times and won statement.

_
Disclaimer: The above is my opinion and should not be relied upon by anyone. Submitted for discussion only.

This is when trying to explain the law becomes annoying. I clearly laid out some contract basics and yet people want to offer their OPINION about the law WITHOUT any legal training whatsoever.

1. The license is granted to the owner from the builder. Not the other way around.

2. Building and having terms imposed on you by a mud owner DOES NOT OVERRULE FEDERAL LAW. Unless their is consideration, there is no contract!!!

3. The statement? that you refer to does not give the right to modify but suggests the owner becomes the full owner of the work over the author. Your interpretation has nothing to do with what the owner is trying to do in this instance (which we have clearly established is not a legally binding contract).

4. People need to stop saying what they THINK the law is or is not. Opinions are not helpful and without any legal training or serious study you do nothing more than obscure the facts and make the situation more confusing.

From what I can see from the quote originally mentioned above, the license is talking about the area file itself.  there is no mention of the actual intellectual property of the area, just the area FILE.  All arguments before this have related to the IP.  How does the area file fit into the copyright?  I could make a comment based on previous conversations on the topic, but it would be a comment based on others' opinion.  I'd be interesting in seeing a more intelligent response.

Darrik Vequir
-Who realizes a law students opinion is just that, but still wants to hear it.

Right here, baby. With fun quotes like license agreements superceding copyright law, and such.

Welcome to the wonderful world of ACK!, such as it is.

I know some people will find certain points vastly amusing in here. While some of her points are right, and her posts appear initially correct, once taken as a whole....who the hell gave the ACK! admin this utterly wrong information?!?!?

-D

As I understand it, even if you cede the claim that the mud owner owns the area file (not the copyright), that still doesn't grant him or her the right to use, display, copy (etc.) the work. Hence, it's sole purpose from that moment is to take up space on their hard drive.

Kas.

From what I've read of Mason's response, the actual clause in the license is perfectly valid... it may not be what the writer meant, of course.

This was my point in my previous post... the clause is fine, but what is being argued in the rest of the thread is not what the clause is saying... heck, what the owners are actually trying to enforce isn't what the clause says, either.

Fun stuff.

DV

I suppose if you wanted to take it that literally you could argue that it does not pertain to the "work" itself but the directory in the code. (though that would seem a little strange. Thats like announcing "ALL OF MY BOOKS ARE MY BOOKS AND NOT YOURS!" rather pointless, yes?).

its quite clear, whatever the case, that ack!mud has not much of a clue what they are doing. and until someone from there provides me with a docket number or case citation, i will hold my opinion that they are full of crap.

This is what the ACK! community thinks of license issues apparently. You have to sue to get their attention even if their license is legally questionable.

Isn't the ACK! community just fun?

-D

My first question is, why do you even care about "the ACK! community" if you feel it is so messed up?

As for the license, I have a question: Is the situation here the makers of a codebase saying they own any area anyone creates on any mud that uses that codebase? Or are they saying anyone that becomes a builder on ACK! Mud (is there a specific mud named ACK! Mud?) and then makes an area for that mud gives all ownership rights to the area to that mud?

That sounds like a standard "work for hire" type relationship. Work for hire is not always done for money. As for consideration, the builder is getting access to a server and codebase where they can build things, they get the status/prestige/fun/whatever of being a wiz/builder on that mud, etc. There is definitely valid consideration.

This may be a pointless conversation for some, but others may feel it is somewhat informative. And, if it can make someone aware of their rights, then it shall not have been in vain. If Ack!mud wishes to dismiss us by claiming we get all tingly because we are discussing the law, that is fine with me. I'm in law school and really do enjoy discussing this kind of stuff.

Threshold:

Simply creating a work for another is not necessarily a work for hire, per se. Moreover, simply allowing a builder to work on a builder port is not in itself consideration. Not all muds make builders an imm, which is another reason building in itself is not necessarily consideration. However, granting special privileges (such as an imm) to a builder MAY create consideration (again, such a determination is not definite).

However, just because there is consideration does not necessarily mean the contract is valid. A contract can not be forced upon someone. The license is granted to the owner from the author. If the owner wants to say "if you want to build you have to agree to these terms" that is fine. However, without consideration such a deal would be invalid. Moreover, a builder could simply say "i don't agree" and the offer from the owner no longer invokes a power of acceptance in the builder. At which point, a completely new set of terms could be arranged.

(That was a crash course in offer and acceptance, another important aspect of contracts. I don't know if this helps or not, but I thought I would throw it in to cloud everyone's mind a little more.)

In order to claim something is 'work for hire', you have to pay them at least minimum wage for the work done, potential benefits, etc.

I really don't think that any MUD can logically claim that, Threshold.

As for why I am hashing this over, I have been working on an ACK! derivitive for the past 4 or 5 years. I think that I can honestly say I have no small interest on this subject.

-D

There is no true legal precedent for the situation this creates.

On the one hand, a builder uses the medium the owner created to create the work. This forms an intrinsic relationship between the two. The builder has used the owners resources and equipment, and therefore does not have exclusive rights to the material created.

On the other, the builder has created something which fits into the mold the owner needs, but is not solely dependent upon that medium. In other words, without the MUD, the builder could still create the room descriptions, NPC descriptions, etc. Therefore, despite the use of the owners medium, they would still have exclusive rights, n'est ce pas?

Sadly, there are those who are vindictive enough (or immature enough) to demand removal of their areas when things sour on the homefront. By far the best option is to agree with their demands, remove their area(s) and move on. This is not always a viable option, and involves a level of maturity which is not often in the repertoire of the owner. The owner should endeavor to not hire persons of this caliber.

In my personal experience, those who do stoop to this level are also uneducated enough that the removal of their area(s) is actually a benefit....

-------------

Another option, and one which I espouse: include a plethora of helpfiles which indicate that contributions to, work on, etc for your site becomet he property of the site and cannot be removed. When they demand removal, point them to those files. Indicate that you'll be more than willing to comply if they get a court ruling which says that you must do so.

I also do not believe work for hire requires material payment. So long as the worker and the employer agree that the value of the payment is worth the goods given, the standards are met.

Alright i'll try to sum up my take on this with a simple analogy.
A builder, in most not all cases, is using the property of the mud owner to create the area file. Now i'm not sure about American laws regarding this issue, but Canadian laws are quite clear regarding both written and verbal contracts. If said builder agree's to abide by all "terms" placed before him by the owner of the mud, and one of those terms clearly state that all rights and ownership of the area become sole property of said mud and owner, then any area created by the builder does become sole property of the owner. Now of course there are many other "if's" that can affect the forstated. But in short, as a builder, if you do not like the rules placed before you by the owner of the mud. Then do not build there. (And now for the analogy) If I agree to let someone put a new set of spark plugs into my car. And we agree that these sparkplugs will become the property of myself, the person putting them into "my" car, in no way can say later that he wants them back for there was a verbal contract made stating that the sparkplugs would become my property.

But like so many other legal "issues" there is to many "if's" to make a realistic generalized statement. And since verbal contracts on the internet are almost impossible to hold up in court, everything I said could very well be dis-proved.

Well I think i've wasted enough of everyones time(hehe), just thought I'd add my two and a half cents.

There is no "intrinsic relationship" formed in any legal sense.

As long as people are using analogies, I thought I would contribute one myself that might help people figure this out.

A is making a poetry book. B writes poetry. A says, if you want, you can write in my poetry book and it will get published and it becomes my property. B writes poetry in the book.

Unless A pays B in some manner, this is not a work for hire. A may have a right to use the work to be published, but does not own the copyright, regardless of what A said. An invalid contract does not overrule Federal Law. B still owns the copyright to the work, but A has a license to use it.

I was somewhat panting after reading all these posts but I have to admit I enjoyed them. This is a hot topic for builders and every builder or owner has a vested interest in it.

To somewhat cut to the chase, I whole heartedly agree with Mason in almost every area especially his analogy of the poem. The points I wanted to bring up is until there IS a documented court case that establishes precedent all the bantering is somewhat moot except to establishing a MU* community moral stance on the issue.

Yes, a builder agreeing to build for an owner gives both the right to the product. The inherent fact in that is if the builder didn't agree they wouldn't build. The builder is the author and the owner is the publisher and either has a right to display within the license authority of the codebase. I make this point because an owner may have commissioned creation of an integral portion of their world to the builder and oops, that builder gets disgruntled and demands removal of their works. A competent owner just can't risk that. The authorship should remain intact and readily displayed unless the author requests it not to be.

I do think there is a moral imperative for the owner to give the builder a copy of their works if they leave too. It may be a pain to send the zone file, it may send a unique zone out into public domain, but the owner didn't write the thing! Let the builder have it!

Copywrite laws are generally a good thing but as I mentioned at the beginning of this with the absence of a case law basis established for MU* volunteer building, all we really have is a form of common morality WE establish. I certainly wouldn't build for Ack! under that concept Dulan brought up and the posts here certainly agree it's silly.

Iluvatar

Perhaps I should clarify the intrinsic relationship statement:

There exists an intrinsic relationship between builder and owner when the builder creates an area, or areas, on a MUD which has a unique theme or setting. The builder is using the medium of the owner and the owner's storyline or concept to create a zone, area, or room which fits within the theme.

The builder certainly created the work, but the work would not and could not exist without both the medium to create (the MUD itself) and the concept behind the area. Note that this is a specific situation wherein the two are dependent upon one another - the area and the theme of the MUD itself potentiate one another; although each is capable of existing independently, the sum of the whole is greater than any of the parts. Complements, if you will.

To illustrate via analogy: Robert Lynn Aspirin's Thieves World Series' are written by numerous authors. Each is an independent work of their respective author, yet cannot exist without the world as a whole. The author could not, for example, take the work published in a Thieves World Anthology and rerelease it as a seperate work without giving credit, and having permission from, Aspirin. By the same token, that author can not demand omission from future printings or anthologies, because he or she contributed the work with the understanding that it would become a part of the whole collection, unless it was stipulated in the original contract otherwise.

Provide the docket number of said court case, Iluvatar, or provide a case citation. Otherwise, your as full of it as the ACK! people with this statement.

Wrong. Terribly wrong. Keep out of this discussion unless you know what you speak of, Robbert. I could build an area on notepad, completely unconnected to the internet, that would work with a MUD. However, a MUD cannot operate without areas - an area is independent of the MUD, but a MUD is dependent on areas.

Wrong again. The work would and could exist without the MUD - it would not be playable unless installed in a different MUD, but it would exist. The concept behind the area could exist as well - regardless of what you may try to claim.

This is irrelevant, and I fail to see how this applies to the MUD Community. However, a contradiction to this would be the Star Wars/Star Trek series of fanfiction that are published so widely.

Now, what I really must wonder is why Robbert is fighting so hard against this. Does he have something to gain from lessening builders rights to their area? What? Whenever someone brings in so much irrelevant and just -wrong- information in an attempt to derail or otherwise refute an argument....What's in it for you, Robbert? Why do you want to lessen, or even remove, builders rights to their areas?

-D

Read it again Dulan, I said in the absence of one, our only resort is common expectations of morality or mores in the general community which can be just as powerful as a case citation.

Iluvatar

Law school eh? Good luck. I graduated in 1998 from the University of Georgia School of Law. After a clerkship, I decided I did not want to be a lawyer. The degree and the knowledge are continually helpful in my business life.

I will address your main points quoted above:

1) Work for Hire: Nobody ever said all work created is a work for hire. But generally, if you are "hired on" somewhere (even in a volunteer capacity) contributions are going to be viewed by a court as work for hire. Furthermore, most muds (and certainly all well run ones) have terms that all new builders/imms/etc. agree to before they start contributing code. These generally make it very clear who will *OWN* the finished product. Since these terms are agreed to in advance and without coercion, they will almost definitely be enforceable.

2) I am not sure why you are so hung up on the consideration issue. You seem to be operating under a common law student falacy that consideration must have a real, monetary value in order to be valid. It does not. Providing the mud upon which to build stuff is in and of itself more than sufficient consideration. Further, most muds also provide some degree of training, lessons, etc. in coding or building. That training is also valid consideration.

Whether or not there is valid consideration is a VERY low standard in contract law.

I mentioned this elsewhere already, but since you posted it specifically I felt I should directly respond.

You do *NOT* have to pay someone a single penny for something to be considered work for hire. Volunteer work in various capacities frequently results in work for hire. There is no money changing hands.

"Work for hire" (or more specifically, "work made for hire") is defined by the Copyright Act (17 U.S.C.A. $ 101) as:

====================
1) a work prepared by an employee within the score of his or her employment;

or

2) a work specially ordered or commissioned fore use as a contribution to a collective work, as part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, as a translation, as a supplementary work, as a compliation, as an instructional text, as a test, as answer material for a test, or as an atlas, if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire.
====================

A mud admin/owner could easily invoke the 2nd definition (assuming written terms were agreed to in advance- and with new laws that make a digital signature equal to a written one, it is easier than ever to have a "written instrument"). A mud admin could very possibly invoke the 1st definition as well. It would not be a terribly difficult legal argument that a builder is an employee of the mud. Bear in mind that one does not have to be *paid* to be an employee.

Above and beyond all the legal definitions, one should really keep in mind the practical realities of these situations. We are generally talking about muds that are pure hobbies. No money is involved, which generally results in things following the old maxim "possession is nine tenths of the law." Very few mud owners OR builders will ever be able to afford a lawyer for this type of conflict, and even if they could, the issues will be so muddled that the proceedings could be very unpredictible. Further, damages are so minimal that it would require someone willing to just blow their money on a lawyer on principle. That is not only rare, but usually unwise.

Sorry for 3 posts in a row, but as I re-read some other posts there was one other thing I thought I should share- my opinion on how I think admins *SHOULD* do things.

IMHO, mud admins/owners (hereafter owners) should discuss the issue up front and in detail with any potentially new builder, imm, whatever (hereafter coders). Before anyone actually starts contributing content, I think a wise owner should write up a simple one page statement that details who will own the product of whatever the coder creates. They should email or fax this to the coder, who should then sign it and either fax it back, or scan it and email it back.

For the most part, when a coder chooses to leave a mud, one would hope that the terms of their departure are not so bad that they WANT to take their code. If the coder wishes to leave his/her work behind, everything is just peachy.

If a coder wishes to have his code removed, the owner should (in my opinion) make every effort to grant this request. I think this is especially true in the case of areas, since they are generally a lot easier to remove than major mudlib code.

If a coder wishes to use their code elsewhere, the owner should in almost every case agree to this as well. Opposite from the above, I think this should ALWAYS be honored for non-area code. I think if the coder agrees to let the mud use his/her area, however, the area should not be used elsewhere.

These are all my personal opinions. They are how I think things *should* work on a mud that operates in the standard "hobby" fashion. Basically, I believe that:

1) Areas should move with whoever created them. If the creator wishes to allow it to stay, great. If they want it removed, the owner should almost always remove it. If they want to use it somewhere else, the owner should almost always agree to this.

2) Internal code should be left in place. Removing this type of code is more disruptive (generally) than just removing an area(s). However, I think whoever created this internal code should be free to use it wherever they wish.

Threshold:

I never said that money was required to equal consideration. What I did say was that merely providing one the opportunity to build on a codebase would not be consideration. This would be akin to saying that in the aforementioned analogy the owner provided the poet with pen and paper to write the the poem but kept the pen and paper once the poem was completed. This in no way would be considered consideration. As I mentioned before, if the mud gave the builder IMM privileges, this may be considered consideration if it were given for the work. Moreover, you know providing the statute means nothing without looking at the annotated code for proper interpretation.

Please don't try to dismiss me with some "common law student fallacy" statement. This summer I will be working at Mayer, Brown, Rowe, & Maw (as long as we are comparing resumes). No "common" student gets hired there.

As far as damages are concerned, you should know that copyright damages are statutory and would not be based on basic contract remedies. Therefore, to dismiss damages as minute at best is not a correct restatement of the law.

As far as "possession is nine-tenths of the law" crap. You should know that statement is full of crap and is one of the first things you learn is incorrect in your first year Property class. I can describe all sorts of situations in which that statment is incorrect, including lost or mislaid property, conversion of chattel, theft, and bailor-bailee relationships, You may intimidate others by pointing to your J.D., but that won't work with me.
.
You may have gone to law school, but you grossly misstate the law in some instances. I don't know if this is because you run a Mud and wish to convince people that you are right or if you are just mistaken. Nonetheless, you should aim for preciseness when it comes to discussing legal matters and not postulate your opinion.

Reread my statement. I said the builder used the medium of the owner, not a third party system. I also fail to understand the animosity in your statement. I'll ignore it, since there's no point to it.

Again, you're placing a narrow focus on a broad scope. Remove your rose colored glasses, Dulan, and look at the greater picture. Yes, you could easily claim that the two could be created independently of one another. It is entirely possible, for example, for JRR Tolkien and Fred Smith to both have created a Middle Earth, for example. However, since Mr Tolkien published his, he has the creative licensure rights to the idea.

I operate a uniquely themed MUD. Were a builder to create an area which was based upon my theme, regardless of the medium used, it would be unusable elsewhere without my permission. Note that this is entirely independent of whether or not this area was built for me, or even with my knowledge. The builder could certainly change the names and use it, however.

Wrong. Both Star Wars and Star Trek novels require permission from their respective copyright holders prior to publication. They are utilizing a theme without which their work cannot exist, and therefore are intimately dependent upon that relationship. The Star Wars multiverse requires approval of LucasArts prior to publication. Star Wars MUDs, were they known to LucasArts, would also require their sanctioning. I suggest you look on the web for the letter from Mr Raymond Feist regarding creation of MUDs based upon a copywritten theme before you put your other foot in your mouth.

Again, why the vehemence? I'll ignore the personal attack, and give a general disclaimer. All areas used on th eMUD for which I work were written by myself, my wife, or one to two other people. Prior to using work from other persons, I obtain a very specific written agreement between them and us which clearly outlines our various rights on each end. In over three years of operation, I have never had a request/demand/otherwise to remove an area, and I never expect to have one. I treat builders with the utmost respect, and understand from having done it myself the depth of the work they perform.

I have not lessened, demeaned, or removed the rights a builder has to his or her areas. I have merely expounded the other half, the right the owner has to the work as well. Show me where I have said a builder does NOT have the right to something. I challenge you, Dulan, to show where I have at any time attacked the rights of the builder in any of my posts.

Can people please remember that it is copyRIGHT - the RIGHT to make copies - and not copyWRITE!

Work for hire applies under two circumstances - either you're an employee, or you've SIGNED a written agreement in advance. A transfer of copyright or exclusive rights must also be signed and in writing. This means that, without signing an agreement in writing, the builder still owns the copyright to their work, unless they release it into the Public Domain (in which case nobody owns it), or unless they are an "employee".

An "employee" has a whole set of rights, including the right to minimum national wage (plus a HUGE number of other rights - these vary from country to country, but I'm sure everyone is aware of most of them). If the mud argues that it's builders are "employees", then those builders would have a good case for demanding back-pay (this was the same problem AOL had with some of it's "volunteers").

Now while I agree that many muds could argue implied licenses, and any wise mud owner should require explicit ones, these would generally only apply to NON-exclusive rights. The Ack license claims exclusive rights, and does so without requiring that the builders are even made aware of it, let alone sign away those rights.

The point I believe Robbert is trying to make is that if a builder creates an area based on an existing theme, that area would become a derivative work (similar to "fan fiction"). The builder would still own the copyright to their work, but they would only be able to use it under the conditions specified by the copyright holder of the original work, unless they removed all references to that work. For example if you created an area based upon the Pern theme, you'd still own the copyright, but you'd get into some serious problems if you tried to use it on your mud.

So in short, it's fairly easy to stop a builder demanding the removal of their area, but if you want to stop them using their area somewhere else, then you're going to need a signature (it's simply not realistic for a mud to make its builders "employees", unless it's a highly successful commercial mud). However if you have an original theme, you at least have the right to make sure they remove references to that theme before using the area elsewhere.

The clause in the Ack license is legally worthless, and provides mud owners with a false sense of security. I believe that well-drafted licenses should be put together so that ALL parties know EXACTLY where they stand. Each mud is going to have different requirements, and that's fine, but it's important that those requirements are protected by legally binding agreements, not by ignorance and the belief that "they can't afford to sue me anyway". The mud community has enough problems over the wording of certain licenses as it is, without adding some outright worthless licenses to the pile.

Nothing significant to add, but I just thought I'd point out that the famous quote "possession is nine tenths of the law" is actually a misquote of "possession is nine points of the law".

Kas.

My thanks, KaVir, for clarifying my intention.

Also, for both the record and the dimwitted, let it be known that my position is not in favor of the strictures imposed by the ACK! license. Quite the contrary - I do not endorse, at any time, exclusive rights.

Also, KaVir - you mentioned a SIGNED statement of understanding or agreement. With the electronic signature law passed in the US, digital signatures are permissible as legal tender, from my understanding. I believe there is still some question as to what comprises a digital signature, however.

And, finally, let me extend my sympathies to those who have lost loved ones in conflict of any sort on this Memorial Day.