Member Discussions

Hello all,

I honestly didn't think we had to worry about this too much in the world of text games, but after reading through the forums I've noticed it is brought up quite a bit.

What exactly are some issues that MUDs based on copyrighted and trademarked books/games/etc need to be aware of? If no money is being made by the MUD, then can you really be sued for trademark infringement? Everything I've read says if a monetary transaction takes place based on someone else's trademark/copyright then you are guilty of trademark infringement. So if I'm not making any money, am I in the clear?

What other kind of issues are there? I know there's some sort of law that prevents people from using your trademark in a way that confuses consumers into thinking you are the original trademark owner. IE. you can't make a DBZ MUD and claim you're from Funimation/whoever owns DBZ these days. If I slap a big "THIS MUD IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH COMPANY X" on my greeting/website, will that suffice to protect the MUD?

Any other advice is greatly appreciated. If you just pop on here to spout off something stupid that you think makes you look smart or cool, I'm not interested.

Thanks,
Radyth

(Comment added by Radyth on Sun Oct 9 22:20:48 2011)

Just saw that there was a 'legal issues' board; sorry for the incorrect posting, but my questions still remain.

I found this on Blizzard's website (the company in question):
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/company/about/legal-faq.html

Can I do a total conversion of your games?

Yes. We've seen some very polished and fun conversions for our games, and have no problems with total conversions so long as they are for personal use and do not infringe our End User License Agreement included in our games, nor the rights of any other parties including copyrights, trademarks or other rights.

Would a MUD fall under this category?

Also, they seem pretty lax about fan-fiction/fan-sites, even going as far as providing downloadable packs to assist in setting up fan sites. Has anyone heard of anything in the past regarding Blizzard and non-monetized MUDs?

Undoubtedly you are going to bombarded with people on here
trying to scare you, saying blah blah company will sue you,
do you want to risk it, blah blah blah. It will NEVER
happen. If you don't make money, you have nothing to worry
about. Zero. Zip. Zilch. I'd recommend doing the best
you can to gain a copyright. If you don't get a reply,
don't sweat it. Definitely don't change the name. Blizzard
won't care. They have better thing to do with their time
besides chase down fans of their game.

It kind of boggles the mind why you came to the number one
mud discouragement site to ask this question. How many muds
has George Lucas targeted? Zero. How many Starcraft muds
has Blizzard targeted? Zero. How many Magic the Gathering
muds has WoTC targeted? Zero.

Nothing to worry about, don't listen to the armchair lawyers
on here.

That's kinda the same thing I was thinking. I sent an email off a little while ago, but I don't really expect to hear anything back from it. I'm just going to keep moving along until I hear something rock solid that convinces me otherwise.

You guys post a lot around the same times are you two special
friends?

Which Blizzard game are you basing it on?

No iov-whatever your name is. And by that logic, you would be our 'special' friend as well.

It's based on Diablo, mostly the 2nd one.

Some thoughts:

1. Try to find the Diablo 2 EULA and see if it explains what they mean by "personal use". There may be specifics that protect their trademark and shield your project.

2. Try to get in touch with this person who posted in 2002 about a Diablo 2 MUD that is no longer up: http://www.topmudsites.com/forums/advertising-players/2162-diablo-2-mud.html

3. You'll get more players than other new MUDs just because of the name. But most of them will expect a good clone (and nothing else). To me, that would be hard, not making the changes I want because the game is a clone. Make sure it's what you want to do.

4. While Blizzard itself may not care much for a free MUD, you will definitely get virtual heat from fellow admins and later on, from players with a grudge. Blizzard will become aware of your existence sooner or later, especially if you have a solid web presence. If you've violated their terms, you have to be open to the possibility (regardless of how small) that you'll be forced to close doors after n years of labor.

This isn't a black and white issue, and there are no certainties. There has been a Diablo mud in the past, and although it has since shut down, as far as I know that wasn't due to legal threats. But on the other hand, Blizzard certainly isn't shy about taking legal action against unofficial WoW servers - which are basically just muds.

Blizzard legal targets private servers

Blizzard files lawsuit against private server

Blizzard awarded $88M from WoW private server lawsuit

Would they take the same action against a free based-text mud? Who knows. But personally I wouldn't want the Sword of Damocles hanging over my head. Some copyright holders have indeed forced muds to shut down in the past.

My mud draws a lot of inspiration from Diablo II, but ideas are not protected by copyright or trademark law.

taking legal action against unofficial
WoW servers - which are basically just muds.

LOL. Except they aren't muds at all. They are graphical.
Are you aware of what a mud is? Blizzard takes actions
against these servers because MANY of them charge and alter
the game as they see fit.

(Comment added by Jodah on Mon Oct 10 4:14:16 2011)

You can pretty much ignore Plaz's post. It doesn't apply in
the least.

(Comment added by Jodah on Mon Oct 10 4:14:53 2011)

Kavir's post I mean.

Jodah wrote:
LOL. Except they aren't muds at all. They are graphical.

Graphics are client-side, and we're talking about servers. There's no reason (other than lawsuits) why you couldn't play WoW through a text-based interface - and some MMORPGs such as Second Life already offer text-based clients. Likewise, there's nothing stopping you from playing a traditional mud (such as DikuMUD) through a fully graphical interface.

I recommend reading Raph Koster's article "Are MUDs and MMORPGs the same thing?" in which he explains "...why I think both are really the same thing; in many ways, there are far larger differences between certain kinds of text muds than there are between graphical and text-based games."

Thanks for all of the information everyone.. very helpful and informative.

Might wanna check that username before you suggest someone doesn't know what a MUD is Jodah.. :P

Few more questions for you guys:

Say I was caught one day, are they going to sue me immediately or would they ask me to take it down first?

I can't imagine a MUD with 20ish players would cause much in damages and since I'm not making profits, they'd get like no $$$ .. right? Does anyone know how damages are figured in cases like these?

If I looked up exactly what words and phrases Blizzard has trade marked, could I just change those and be clear from infringement? Ie. Could I still use the name 'Blood Moor' if they only have 'Tristram' trademarked? What about phrases such as 'X% Faster Run/Walk Speed'?

I know they couldn't possibly have a copyright/trademark on 'Short Sword', but does there get a point where it becomes a copyright/trademark issue if you had every weapon/armor from the game?

Radyth wrote:
Say I was caught one day, are they going to sue me immediately or would they ask me to take it down first?

That would be up to them, but if you weren't making any money then my guess is that they'd probably send a cease-and-desist letter first, giving you the chance to take the mud down. But that's only a guess, it would be their decision.

Radyth wrote:
I can't imagine a MUD with 20ish players would cause much in damages and since I'm not making profits, they'd get like no $$$ .. right? Does anyone know how damages are figured in cases like these?

They could claim statutory damages and attorney's fees, even if they couldn't prove actual damages. If the court finds the infringement willful, you could potentially be talking about a 5-digit figure.

Radyth wrote:
If I looked up exactly what words and phrases Blizzard has trade marked, could I just change those and be clear from infringement?

You should be clear of trademark infringement, yes. There would still be the risk of copyright infringement though, particularly if you copied verbatim everything that wasn't trademarked.

Legal? No.

Risky? Maybe.

Ethical? Your call.

Graphics are client-side,
and we're talking about servers.

Kavir I'm surprised you don't know what a mud is. Also,
this is really apples and oranges. We are talking about
people altering BLIZZARD'S ACTUAL GAME. The game that makes
them millions. The ACTUAL game. Completely irrelevant.

He's gonna be sued for a 5 digit amount? Bahahahaha. As if
you have any clue. That one made me laugh pretty hard.
They will never send a stop letter. They will never send a
letter. People are so arrogant on here. Newsflash: Muds
aren't important.

Even if they did sue you, they can't force you to pay. You won't go to jail over not paying them money that they don't need. You could reopen your MUD with a new name the next day and there's nothing they could do. It's not like you'll have a cop sitting behind you while you're on your computer telling you what not to do. They can only do something if you're making money off their trademark, plain and simple. If everything is free, sucks for them because what you're doing is pretty much harmless and actually helping the trademark by bringing in new potential players that may actually play the real game.

I don't think that is a very healthy attitude. Besides,
ignoring a C&D can get you reported to your ISP, and in most
areas, those are in short supply. I'm sure a judgment could
be reached that could see your wages garnished. There are
ways to get to someone who has a suit filed against them.

What it boils down to is if you have a passion for a
particular theme and want to express that by paying homage
to it with a themed MUD, then understand you are taking a
risk that all of your work could amount to either nothing,
or you may be causing yourself a lot more work later on in
the event you are forced to retheme what you have. These
situations are unlikely, but perfectly within the legal
right of the copyright/trademark holders to enforce. The
most likely negative consequence will be loss of work, but
worse consequences are possible.

Looking at the listings, obviously lots of people find the
risk worth sharing their passion with others. Whether or
not you feel it is worth the risk or ethical, is up to you.

Jodah wrote:
Kavir I'm surprised you don't know what a mud is.

The author of the article I linked to (and therefore the person you're accusing of not knowing what a mud is) is Raph Koster. He worked on 1992's Worlds of Carnage before founding LegendMUD in 1994. He later became the lead designer of Ultima Online, the creative director of Star Wars Galaxies, and the chief creative officer for EverQuest II, among other titles. He also the author of the excellent book "Theory of Fun for Game Design".

However as Raph himself pointed out, "I’ve usually found that those who have worked on the implementation side of both tend to feel that they are the same thing, but that thsoe who haven’t see them as somehow categorically different". I'm guessing you fall into the second category?

My own achievements are of course paltry by comparison, and barely worth mentioning - indeed my August 2001 article "The History of MUDs" has been out of print for years. However if you really wish to learn more about my views on muds you may find my October 2000 TMS article "An Introduction to Muds" of interest, and my more recent interview on GamingHUD also touched on the differences between graphical MMORPGs and text-based muds.

Jodah wrote:
He's gonna be sued for a 5 digit amount? Bahahahaha. As if you have any clue. That one made me laugh pretty hard.

17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2) states in part "In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000."

If you believe the Library of Congress have made a mistake, and wish to correct them, their contact details are here: http://www.copyright.gov/help/

Jodah, you asked me a question in another thread. I'm going to respond to it here. There are precisely two explanations for the things you are writing: 1) Malice and 2) Willful ignorance. By assuming malice, I'm actually giving you the benefit of the doubt. That goes back to my original question - why does everyone keep dignifying Jodah's posts with responses?

Lyanic, I'm going to rise above your petty personal trolling
attacks and not respond to you.

The author of the article I
linked to (and therefore the person you're accusing of not
knowing what a mud is) is Raph Koster.

It doesn't matter how many credentials you pull out, an
apple is still an apple. It doesn't matter how many experts
or papers you write defending an apple being an orange, it
will always just be an apple. A mud will never be a mmorpg,
never. So you see, there's a big problem with your lack of
logic: NONE OF IT APPLIES. A graphical mmorpg with millions
of player is no where close to a mud with 10 players. As
for the graphical servers that steal players, they ACTUALLY
MAKE BLIZZARD LOSE MONEY, not to mention the whole altering-
their-actual-game thing. Will a mud ever make Blizzard lose
a dime? Nope.

17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2) states
in part "In a case where the copyright owner blah blah blah
blah, let me find the biggest scary number I can and post
it..blah blah....not more than $150,000."

Oh wait, you failed to mention the paragraphs before that
which mentions 750$. No mud has ever been sued. No mud
will ever be sued. Even if they tried, a mud could
successfully argue in favor of fanfiction. Its usage
definitively falls under fair use.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

you may find my October 2000
TMS article "An Introduction to Muds" of interest

I find these articles very poorly written and hardly an
achievement. In fact, I'm 100% positive I could write them
much better AND make them relevant at the same time. And a
post on gaminghud.com, an article that no one will read
except us, is hardly worth bragging about. They even had to
take down their forums for lack of usage. They claim to
have 200k views for it's entire life which is very still
very bad for a gaming site. I mean look at their About
page, totally unprofessional. Alexa ranks their site
1,388,151. Holy moly, 1,388,151? I guess no one reads it.
Compare that to mudconnect.com which is 372,927, and
mmorpg.com which is ranked 8,432, and massively.joystiq.com
which is ranked 2183. Pretty big gap. If you want to
impress, try submitting an interview to a relevant site.

Jodah wrote:
It doesn't matter how many credentials you pull out, an apple is still an apple. It doesn't matter how many experts or papers you write defending an apple being an orange, it will always just be an apple. A mud will never be a mmorpg, never.

Well that's your opinion, as someone who apparently has no experience working on either. Those who have designed and developed them, and actually understand how they work, disagree with your view. In fact before the term "MMORPGs" was invented, they were simply called "graphical muds", and the world's most popular free MMORPG even started out as a text-based mud.

Radyth's mud already supports the protocols for a graphical interface. Even if you think Blizzard will ignore text games (which is easy for you to claim when you've nothing at stake), what happens if someone creates and releases a Diablo-style graphical plugin for his mud? Perhaps something along the lines of this?

Jodah wrote:
Oh wait, you failed to mention the paragraphs before that which mentions 750$.

It mentions "not less than $750 or more than $30,000" but explicitly states "Except as provided by clause (2)" - which is what I quoted in my previous post. Clause (2) covers situations where "the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully", and mentions "the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000".

The statement of mine you disagreed with was "If the court finds the infringement willful, you could potentially be talking about a 5-digit figure". Therefore clause (2) is the relevant one.

Jodah wrote:
I find these articles very poorly written and hardly an achievement. In fact, I'm 100% positive I could write them much better AND make them relevant at the same time.

Then do it.

Seeing as we've completely and utterly derailed the thread, and it is essentially now an attack on Kavir by a troll, I would just like to point out that said troll logged onto Kavir's mud Godwars2 once, lasted about an hour and a half before dying to one of the weakest mobs in the game, and gave up after being soundly advised to pick up a dictionary and/or spellchecker.
Go away..

If you use a codebase such as DIKU or a derivative thereof and are actually adhering to the terms of their licensing I think that should offer some protection. My reasoning being that since the DIKU license prevents, as far as I understand, any kind of profit or even donations to pay for hardware/upkeep. I would think that might possibly keep you from being forced to pay up in most cases, since you wouldn't be gettting ANY profit at all from running the MUD.

Frankly if you have a copyright notice as to the ownership of the IP, then that section [17 U.S.C. §504(c)(2)] really shouldn't apply since there really isn't any burden in proving that a site was infringing. If the mere use of the IP (without profit) is by definition infringing, and you claim to be using their IP, then there's the proof. That's no burden at all. If the use of their IP (without profit) isn't infringing, then why the court case?

P.S.

Shouldn't this belong under 'Legal Issues'?

As I understand, you are still infringing even without
profit.

So regardless of whether or not your game is making money,
if you are using someone else's IP, you are breaking the
law. Running a "themed" game without written consent from
the copyright holders carries with it the risk of being shut
down, sued, etc. It may be unlikely, but it is still
possible.

Trying to hide behind the label "fan fiction" isn't going to
do you any good. There is no "fan fiction" exception in
copyright law. Labeling "blahcontent is copyright
blahcompany and no copyright infringement intended" is going
to do anything either (if anything, this shows you are aware
you are breaking copyright).

The only "loophole" or "exception" is getting permission.

There really is no question of the legality here. The risk
of having something happen as a result is there, however
minimal it -may- be.

Ethically? That's more of a gray area.

I personally feel that there is a different between legal
speak necessary to protect a copyright, and a genuine
expression of "don't reuse my stuff."

Anne Rice, as an example, has been a staunch opponent of fan
fiction. As she sees it, those are HER characters and she
doesn't want anyone else using them. Even if she isn't
suing anyone, I would feel like it would be wrong to betray
a genuine wish from the creator of that IP to reuse it. In
the same way even if the Diku authors aren't suing people
who are profitting from it, they have made clear the
intention of the license is not to generate money from it, I
feel it wouldn't be ethical to do so.

I believe it is George Lucas who has encouraged fan fiction
based on his work, but he sure hasn't released the copyright
or trademarks of his IP, and there is plenty of instances in
which he has gone to court to protect his IP. A recent case
on the design for the storm trooper helmets come to light.
While legally you still take risk, because he can always
change his mind and sue you, it doesn't seem he minds, so
that seems to me to be ethically alright. Getting official
permission for a Star Wars based MUD or a Star Wars based
story probably won't happen, but I imagine some IP holders,
in regards to fan-fic, have a "don't ask, don't tell" kind
of mentality.

So when debating this, I don't really see the use in
questioning the legality, as that seems rather clear cut.
Legally, you aren't supposed to. The real question is risk
vs. reward on doing so, and whether it is ethical.