Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Crooks material removed for merger and EEP 1.4.1

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Show only dev responses
Originally posted by The Captain
Sorry, I was wrong. Wikipedia is covered under the GNU Free Document License. I would read the license and see what you can do with the text, and abiding by it is the decent thing to do.

By the way, perhaps we should place all future events under the GFDL so something like this never happens again. :)
Click to expand...

I have read about that license on Wikipedia's web page, and it seems that I can indeed use their stuff. BUT, as I understand, it would require me to insert links to the original texts on Wikipedia everytime I use something. Since I think that would kinda ruin an event text, I might as well remove everything from Wikipedia... :(

What have you guys done in terms of sources for event texts?
 
Originally posted by Barbalele
But Crook can have the copyright on his text, but can he has the copyright on commands and triggers too? I don't think he can have this copyright either. Cause Paradox has the copyright on those tools, and crook was just using it with the permission of paradox. Can someone point out if this is right?
Click to expand...

But why do that? If you guys want to use his work against his own will, are you then any better than him? Just because it may (or may not?) be legal to use it against his will, doesn't make it morally right.

He might only want you to remove his work for the sole reason of hurting the project, but you should still show that you are not that petty - and comply to his wishes. And then you should use that GPL or GDFL thingie or whatever (don't really know what they are...:rolleyes: ) in the future, to avoid further complications.
 
AFAIK, signing of international conventions does not mean that the terms of those international conventions are automatically part of the domestic law. Americans should know this better than me. which national law applies depend on which court an allegation is brought under and whether that court accepts that it is the approprate forum to hear the case.

anyway, IMO, all the assertions about whether the whole thing is in theory legal or not is rather useless bcoz AFAIK, in practice, theres nothing that can be done at law that is detrimental against the EEP. Seriously, even if Crook is going to file a case in court against EEP, what can he get? did he suffer any damages or loss of profits? all he can do legally is pull his material from the EEP, and and by the time he got the injuction from court everyone wouldn've forgotten about his material. I mean, this is analogous to situations like copying a special cooking recipe from a neighbour or copying class notes that was written up by friends which lots of people have done in their everyday life. sure, the neighbour or the friend might theoretically have copyright over the material, but r we now going to fear for legal action every time we copy such things?

so i dont know whats the point of all this discussion about. it does not matter one way or the other whether u pull out the material whether Crook wants it removed or not, or whether he has copyright notice in his material or not.
 
Originally posted by Hive
I have read about that license on Wikipedia's web page, and it seems that I can indeed use their stuff. BUT, as I understand, it would require me to insert links to the original texts on Wikipedia everytime I use something. Since I think that would kinda ruin an event text, I might as well remove everything from Wikipedia... :(

What have you guys done in terms of sources for event texts?
Click to expand...

You can still use the information, but not the word for word text. Just rewrite it in your own words and it is fine. :)
 
Originally posted by The Captain
You can still use the information, but not the word for word text. Just rewrite it in your own words and it is fine. :)
Click to expand...

Ah okay... good to hear, that's what I have mostly done anyway.:)

Thanx for the help.
 
Originally posted by tpc
oh c'mon garbon, utility is rather difficult to define & i think you're letting yourself drift a little by saying that everyone else was being unuseful. people are understandably upset by the turn of events, but i agree w/ you that there are very practical reasons not to let public speculation/commentary get out of hand until you've reached some sort of understanding w/ crook.

perhaps another plea w/ folks that they discuss this via private emails w/ you & other in-the-know fellows instead of publicly wd be more what you're asking for?
Click to expand...

Actually that is what I'm looking for, especially because we are reaching and understanding with Crook, any discussiong about legality is out of place because it won't come to that. Its okay to be upset, I know I was, but do we need a whole thread to hear about it? Complaints and legality discussions are not relevant to merger of AGC and EEP at all. Just wasting space...
 
Originally posted by maxpublic
It doesn't matter a whit if the site is located in Sweden or not. In fact, it doesn't matter a damn what local Swedish law is.

Why? Because Sweden is a signatory to an international treaty on copyright law. So long as Sweden intends to abide by that treaty, then Sweden is compelled to follow the established international law which, not surprisingly, is an almost exact duplicate of American copyright law.

And that means that if some yahoo in Sweden were to 'claim' my intellectual property as his own simply because I posted on his web site (regardless of the EULA, since copyright assignment must be EXPLICIT and not IMPLICIT) he would be SOL. Wouldn't matter what the Swedish law was; because I'm an American the only law that applies is the international law, which, like I said, is virtually a carbon copy of American law.
Max
Click to expand...

which is complete and utter BS...

some time ago a DUTCH person chatting on an English site, with someone from the US (a copper pretending to be sub-18), he went to the US to meet this person (whom he thought to be sub-18) and got ARRESTED, because his actions were against AMERICAN law, not Dutch or English or International law...
even better, the copper would be at fault here in the netherlands :)


on the topic: it is unfortunate that Crook wishes his events removed, and I think Mnore is right in his decision to leave them out. Doesn't matter if Crook can or cannot pursue legal action, there is no real reason to deny his request.
 
I don't mind Crook asking for his material to be withheld from the merger. I do wonder about his asking for it to be withdrawn from 1.41. It's going to push back the release of the patch considerably.
 
Originally posted by Classique
I don't mind Crook asking for his material to be withheld from the merger. I do wonder about his asking for it to be withdrawn from 1.41. It's going to push back the release of the patch considerably.
Click to expand...

I can't speak with 100% confidence but its pretty certain that he won't have his materials removed from 1.4.1, so there doesn't need to be any discussion there ;)
 
Originally posted by Garbon
I can't speak with 100% confidence but its pretty certain that he won't have his materials removed from 1.4.1, so there doesn't need to be any discussion there ;)
Click to expand...

You are right, it will be in for the bug fix version EEP 1.4.1. Then we should remove his material to avoid all future unpleasanties, and henceforth only include posted material.
 
If someone has contact with Crook, then get the list of the events he wants to be removed from him. Basically all events he prepared by himself can go that way. Other events - which were discussed on the forum not necessary need to be removed as he was not the only author - there are threads to document it.
But it may be a signal of good will cause I don't see the reason of keeping the material. Having Crook hostile does not mean that response should be hostile too.

@Sun Zi
Sweden signed the international agreement about copyright, so maxpublic is right about any consequences even if Crook would gain mere satisfaction in court and nothing more.

@maxpublic
There is very hard case to decide which events are Crook's intellectual property and which are not as most of them were posted on the forum and discussed, thus Crook was not the only author. Only small part of them that were never posted on the forum are definitely his own.

Furthermore, only descriptions are copyrighted as all other stuff is Paradox property.
So it is a bad will of Crook and rather thunderstorm in a pot than serious case.
 
Regarding the question on choice of laws it must be stressed that there are different rules applicable in different fields of law. Thus the rules on choice of applicable law in a penal case and a case of intellectual property differs and any analogy between application of choice of laws in the respective fields such as ForzaA is suggesting is meaningless.

maxpublic You're not correct in your assumption that international law would govern this situation. Under Swedish law (as indeed in many countries in the continental legal tradition) international law must be transposed to national law to be applied in a certain case. A Swedish court would be unable to apply international law in a specific case if the tenet of international law (whether treaty or general principle) had not been implemented into Swedish law. This is the so called principle of dualism (as opposed to the principle of monism which is used in Anglo-Saxon law for example). So you are quite wrong when you say that it doesn't matter a damn what the Swedish law says.

The point is of little importance since it would seem the requirements of international law has been implemented into Swedish law in this case. I'm no expert on intellectual property and it was a few years ago that I studied it but here's the Swedish legal situation as far as I can recall. The relevant Swedish Act (1960:729) states that the non-economic rights of the originator may not be transferred in a non-limited way. Regarding economic rights things are a bit more complicated and dependent on case-law but in essence non-limited transfer of rights without renumeration would be considered as illegal.

This would mean that the Paradox statement on copyright on this board is void and quite contrary to the law. Frankly I can't understand why Paradox wrote it in the first place or why they keep it.



Mef
 
Suppose for a moment that Paradox gains the rights of what we post here, then I believe that only aplies if something is posted by the same person who is also the author of said something. After all, were I to post the text of LotR here, then that would not give Paradox the rights over LotR. :)
 
Last edited:
theoretically it is also probably illegal under US Copyright Act to forward emails of jokes that someone wrote up and sent you. now i dont want to go into debates about legal theory. the discussion has gone quite OT. i m beginning to sympathise with the position Garbon has taken .....
 
Originally posted by vilkouak
If someone has contact with Crook, then get the list of the events he wants to be removed from him. Basically all events he prepared by himself can go that way. Other events - which were discussed on the forum not necessary need to be removed as he was not the only author - there are threads to document it.
But it may be a signal of good will cause I don't see the reason of keeping the material. Having Crook hostile does not mean that response should be hostile too.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Appropriate action has been and is being taken to that direction and so the purpose of this thread has been fufilled for the moment. ;)

For a bit of clarity, I thought and still thinking that the thought of taking legal action in combination with name-calling was a hostile response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back