Subject: Re: Ethics o' Code-Liftin'

From: [email-masked] (Ian McFarland)
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 01:22:34 -0800

At  2:15 PM 11/18/93 -0800, Karl Boyken wrote:
>Quinn says, basically (I lost the original post, so I'm paraphrasing), that 
>the desire to copyright MOO code springs from idealism.  Then Allan Alford 
>chimes in with, in part:
>
>>Essentially, if your work has been 'published' under your name (even if
>>you didn't get paid for it!), then you can sue for copyright violation
>>if someone else reprints it.  I don't know if the Net counts as
>>'published' (I'm sure it would hold up in court), but the fact is that
>>you can put a 'copyright 1993 by Jane Doe' in with the 'don't heist this'
>>message, and stand a fair chance of winning a suit.
>
>This is idealism?  Dragging lawyers and copyright laws into MOOdom?  This is 
>a meaning of the term 'idealism' that I'm unfamiliar with.

The idealism derives from the hope that people will respect ones
intellectual property. I tend to doubt that a lot of this will end up in
court. It's more likely to arrive in a MOO arbitration, at the very worst.
Of course MOOs do have the death penalty. You can get toaded. (Death does
seem to be more ephemeral in VR, though.)

Is it really so much to ask that someone ask you before they copy your work?
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#
| imf@netcom,com  or  [email-masked]                Jeste pivo, prosim! |
#-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-#

---

From: Nicholas LaFlamme <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 07:03:03 -0800

Well, lets see.  I generally don't have a problem with asking and giving
proper credit.  As a matter of fact I have done so and had authors ask me
why I was bothering to ask.  Unfortunately, there is occassionally some
code that is needed immediately, and the Aurthor is unavailable.  The
Aurthor could remain unavailable for weeks.  This prompts you to simply do
a @dump and be done with it.

  In most cases, Copyright infringement is only prosecuatable where a
profit is made.  The purpose ofa copyright is basically to keep someone
else from making money of someone elses work.  Yes, I think that in many
cases it's somewhat tacky to steal code without asking.  However, I also
tend to consider all code property of the MOO itself, and it is stated as
such on the MOO I run.

					Nick

---

From: John William Chambless <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 07:30:17 -0800

*grin*
Well, now that we've established that:
	1) The law is kind of vague in this situation,
	and
	2) the only consensus about it among MOO programmers is
	that there is no consensus among MOO programmers,
I'd like to make a suggestion (plea?):

Document your wishes in your code! A simple comment like:

"stupid spam verb written by BeanBreath for RudeDudeMOO"
"Please ask permission before porting"

Just a little something to let the rest of us know what you want.
Personally, I agree with the GNU-minded crowd, but I'll certainly
honor the wishes of any other programmer re: their code.
-- 
* In Real Life: Billy Chambless		    University of Southern Mississippi 
* [email-masked]

---

From: Jacqueline Hamilton <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1993 10:13:26 -0800

> "Please ask permission before porting"

Good point.  Although mine would read "Don't port me".  I wonder
if I could make mud.el stick that into my verbs when I edit them.
(and not repeat it if its already there).

My solution to this point has been to set most stuff unreadable
except by wizzes.  Of course that doesn't protect me from wizzes who
think the MOO owns my code, or those untrustworthy siteadmins who
would happily steal my db for their own benefit.  But owell.  It's
just (?) a game...

-j.
(another starving MOO programmer who'd love to get paid to do this.)

---

From: Steven Owens <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1993 15:45:47 -0800

> tend to consider all code property of the MOO itself, and it is stated as

	Hm... I've been staying out of this mostly due to lack of
time, but I feel a need to make a few comments.  This is mostly from
my own casual knowledge of copyright law.  I'm not a lawyer, go hire
one if you want real advice.  I am, however, a professional writer,
which means I do pay a little attention to what the copyright laws
are.

	First, copyright infringement is prosecutable whenever you
infringe on my copyright by exceeding "fair use" (a nice, vague term).
Most of the time prosecutionis practical when your theft of my
copyright infringes on MY ability to make money.  Hence, if you copy
my book and print it and distribute it at cost or even free (losing
money in the process), it's irrelevant; you have lessened my ability
to make money by reducing the available market.  THAT is what I can
sue you for.  Even if you don't distribute many copies, I can still
sue your for punitive damages.

	Second, copyright law is an incredibly fluid thing as law
goes, particularly with respect to international copyrights.  The laws
within the United States seem to change from year to year (sort of
like tax law, hm?) and not all countries abide by the same copyright
laws.  Some countries require different measures to protect your
copyright.

	Given that rather broad caveat, I'm going to summarize some of
the things I know about copyrights.  Keep in mind that some or all of
these may have already changed.

	A copyright is protection of the EXPRESSION of an idea.  Hence,
you could not copyright "Gee, wouldn't it be great to have a program that
mathematically compresses data for easier archiving?" but you COULD 
copyright an algorithm that expresses that idea.

	As soon as you create an expression of an idea, you have the
copyright on it.  However, it may not be too easy to successfully
defend that copyright.  There are various measures you can take; the
most commonly known measures are a) including copyright notices in
your work, and b) REGISTERING your copyright with the library of
congress, for $20 or so.  (Registering is not "buying" a copyright,
it's merely paying the LoC for the paperwork to keep track of the fact
that you HAVE a copyright).

	Different countries have different definitions of what
constitutes a legal copyright notice.  Generally, the more you can
do, the better.  A date, the name of the creator, and the word
or phrase "copyright" or some such is generally a good start.  A
c-in-a-circle is valid some places, not valid other places, and
the only valid notice in yet other places.  The phrase "All rights
reserved." may be helpful in some countries.

	There're also various methods called "poor man's copyright",
like mailing yourself a copy of the work via registered mail, or
leaving a copy with a notary.  These aren't generally regarded as very
effective.  Publication with an accompanying copyright notice IS
rather effective, since it results in a rather large body of witnesses
and a paper record of the work's existence and your copyright.  That's
probably what those cartoonists mentioned earlier were up to.

	There are ways to "lose" your copyright.  Generally, if you
publish a work without taking measures to protect the copyright (i.e.
no notice, etc), you risk placing it in the public domain.  If you
allow others to publish a work without taking measures, you may be
allowing them to place it in the public domain (which is why some
organizations and companies are rather vicious about going after those
who infringe).

	What's fair use?  That's a very vague and ill-defined thing at
best, and since I recall some major court cases about this issue a
couple of years back, I wouldn't be prepared to assume that even the
traditional definition of "fair use" still holds.

	Summing up, if you want to feel certain about how copyrights
work, pick up a *current* book or publication about the matter, or
even better, ASK A LAWYER.

	It is, however, my untrustable and ill-qualified opinion that
you could put a copyright statement in your code and have at least an
ethical, if not a strong legal, leg to stand on if somebody copied it.

	Caveate emptor; this advice is guaranteed to be worth only
what you paid me for it.

Steven J. Owens
[email-masked]