Our records show that you have outstanding author rewards points. Please confirm your latest payment information and redeem your points balance via the Author Reward Store.
If I understand the code in question, it's solely comprised of co-ordinates for the placing of 3D models - models and artwork not included just co-ordinate data. This information, which is freely openly obtained data through a 3rd party API, would then not be qualified for copyright protection, no?
Also, looking at your arguments about enforcement, it's not the responsibility of WoWAce, WoWUI or Curse to enforce copyright law. The owner of the code would be required to act on infringement and after such infringement were confirmed the sites would then be legally obligated to remove such copyrighted material from their sites AFTER official notice.
Well the data isn't available via the API. The API provides a baseline of coordinates that are then hand-tweaked to show the model in the right size/proportion/etc. This data was not created through some data transformation or download, but rather by hand.
Thanks, I'll be taking it to Cairenn, Mazzlefizz and docevl.
Clad: Why you come here mudslinging and railing I don't understand, but really it seems that Kaelten and you guys need to have a personal chat, and a valium. It really isn't my business... and maybe not even yours.
Thanks, I'll be taking it to Cairenn, Mazzlefizz and docevl.
Clad: Why you come here mudslinging and railing I don't understand, but really it seems that Kaelten and you guys need to have a personal chat, and a valium. It really isn't my business... and maybe not even yours.
Cog: Thanks, appreciated.
Mods: Lock per drama policy?
The only drama here is the random shit that's being flung around. I'm well within my right to post my opinions of the situation just as much as anyone else, and that's all that I've done. I didn't attack anyone, I simply stated that I disagreed with Kaelten's opinions, and posted a few minor responses to stuff that had come before me. It really is my business, because I want to ensure that people know where I stand on this issue considering my book is attributed to Kaelten in the article. As I've already stated I've asked for clarification on that point from the author (who paints nothing but an absurdly biased picture of the entire situation). I don't know why the article came out as nasty as it did, but I don't see why me posting my opinions is any different than you posting yours.
I've not attacked you or anyone here, so explain to me how I'm in the wrong.
Actually, aside from your own "I can play that way too" posts, this has been a quite civil debate on the matter.
If we want to talk about the good of the community, it is good to have these sorts of conversations (same as we had when the license for Ace2 was being decided) about how things affect us as authors and users. I've already had two people PM me offline for clarification on a few things and I've learned more from then, and they're learned more from me in the process.
One of the things that I've learned is that this complain originally stemmed from the constants table that Benumbed took from Mazzle (along with the rest of the code that drives it). It looks like that data was removed over four months ago from DaPortrait and he worked to rebuild the model constant table on his own (look, the data is now quite different). That means this complaint has moved from a completely valid one that wasn't acted on (due to Kaelten's inability to respond during that time), to a squabble about what constitutes a derivative work in this case.
For the record, when this addon was removed from wowinterface.com, it was a blatant copy in violation of Mazzle's copyright. I'm not a laywer, so I won't speculate on exactly where things stand at the moment. This may help to explain part of Kaelten's stance, information that conveniently didn't make it into the article.
Well the data isn't available via the API. The API provides a baseline of coordinates that are then hand-tweaked to show the model in the right size/proportion/etc. This data was not created through some data transformation or download, but rather by hand.
Right, the data was taken from 3rd party API, translated and sized, then stored. Those operations on that data also can not be copyrighted.
It doesn't matter if that data was changed 'by hand' or by a computer program, the data origins are from an outside source and are freely available. The author(s) of the addon do not own the data in question.
Example. I go through the telephone book and add international dialing codes to each phone number in my city. I then publish this information on my city's website home page, at the bottom of each page there is an explicit copyright notice covering all information throughout the site. I find that a local phone store is printing out this information and distributing it to each customer that buys a phone. Can I sue for copyright infringement? I can try but because the information is in the public domain to start with and I am only adding, or translating the information, I have little case to present.
@tek: You know what I actually hate that "I can play that way stance". I wish people would just stop playing that way period. I'm reverting it. Let MazzleUI use Recount. I disagree with the personal matters between kaelten and Cog being laundered in public but as I said before that's none of my business so I'll shut up about it. That's why I requested the lock, but it seems like its being resolved through the appropriate (i.e. PM) channels already.
I don't know why the article came out as nasty as it did,
Oh really? The article feels nasty? That wasn't my intention. I agree that the article was biased towards protecting copyright but I felt strongly that the issue was being ignored.
I didn't mean to even attack Kaelten, but he said the things I quoted him as saying. I couldn't ignore his refusal to account for Benumbed's actions.
Right, the data was taken from 3rd party API, translated and sized, then stored. Those operations on that data also can not be copyrighted.
It doesn't matter if that data was changed 'by hand' or by a computer program, the data origins are from an outside source and are freely available. The author(s) of the addon do not own the data in question.
Example. I go through the telephone book and add international dialing codes to each phone number in my city. I then publish this information on my city's website home page, at the bottom of each page there is an explicit copyright notice covering all information throughout the site. I find that a local phone store is printing out this information and distributing it to each customer that buys a phone. Can I sue for copyright infringement? I can try but because the information is in the public domain to start with and I am only adding, or translating the information, I have little case to present.
This would be something to take up in court, but in my personal opinion (which I use to formulate my own responses) there is a hell of a difference between adding information that is already implicit in a given context (your example), and what happened in this case. Sure, you set the model file on the model object and you get a baseline for where the model starts. Then, you have to physically go through and resize and shift the parameters until the model appears as you'd like it to.
There are two things to consider here, one is the way the data was obtained and the other is the fact that the data was simply copied in text VERBATIM without attribution. That is no longer the case, but I don't see your example as applying to this situation. But neither of us is a judge, thankfully.
EDIT: Forgive my presumption. Of course, you could be a judge and I wouldn't know it.
It sounds to me like the main problem is that both addon authors are lacking in both social skills and a sense of civility. It also sounds like Benumbed, while clearly in the wrong originally and being a repeat offender, made a good-faith effort to resolve the situation by working to remove any dependencies on Mazzle's data. If this is true, and Mazzle is still seeking action, then it's pretty much just a grudge at this point.
It's an interesting topic for a general discussion though. Personally I think that it's a bit silly to try to retain too much control over derivatives of freeware open-source software, in the sense that you shouldn't be investing significant amounts of time in it if you care about being "ripped off". Of course, it's still extreme douchebaggery for someone to take something you spent a lot of time on and redistribute it without at least giving credit.
In general, copyright is like keeping your children in a cage until they die from lack of care, for fear of them getting piercings and tatoos and growing up to have children of their own (sorry, couldn't think of a good car analogy hehe).
@tek: You know what I actually hate that "I can play that way stance". I wish people would just stop playing that way period. I'm reverting it. Let MazzleUI use Recount.
Oh I understand, but even if Mazz pissed me off (he hasn't personally, but thi bullshit is kinda... yea...) I still wouldn't go back on my "my code is open" stance. Kinda ruins the whole thing if I make a special case and decide to enact my copyright when I just said I don't believe in copyright at all.
Quote from Jinglehopper »
Oh really? The article feels nasty? That wasn't my intention. I agree that the article was biased towards protecting copyright but I felt strongly that the issue was being ignored.
I didn't mean to even attack Kaelten, but he said the things I quoted him as saying. I couldn't ignore his refusal to account for Benumbed's actions.
Yea, it did come across that way. I dunno, maybe you could have written it differently to be more neutral, but it does come across as if you're writing the article for Mazzle directly and not to bring light to a conflict/issue in the community.
Right, the data was taken from 3rd party API, translated and sized, then stored. Those operations on that data also can not be copyrighted.
Actually, that's exactly what CAN be copyrighted. You can't copyright the data itself, it's the physical expression of the data that is copyrighted. The actual Lua code that mazzle created is what's at issue here. If you went and mined the data yourself and created the table yourself, it wouldn't be a violation of copyright.
It doesn't matter if that data was changed 'by hand' or by a computer program, the data origins are from an outside source and are freely available. The author(s) of the addon do not own the data in question.
To reiterate and put another way, Mazzle doesn't have copyright over the information itself, only the manner in which it is manifested.
I'm no judge, nor do I know how the information has been changed or saved.
From this example what I'm seeing is that information is being data mined, by hand or by script, then being manipulated by size and by location.
I see a parallel argument between WoWHead, WoWDB, Thottbot, etc etc. All these sites have access to central information (World of Warcraft) and each other. If anyone of the sites started datamining each other would you be able to sue them? Even if they copied the same data structure, like how WoWHead and WoWDB are very similar, the data is still in public domain.
The data source, even if manipulated, is still public domain data.
Quote from Cogwheel »
To reiterate and put another way, Mazzle doesn't have copyright over the information itself, only the manner in which it is manifested.
In your example I'd be able to change the table structure and everything would be fine. This does not strengthen your argument.
It sounds to me like the main problem is that both addon authors are lacking in both social skills and a sense of civility.
Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant to the "main problem." The main problem is that one person violated the copyright of another. When this violation was made known, nothing was done about it. Your personal opinions of the character of the parties involved has no bearing on the discussion except to incite hostility.
It also sounds like Benumbed, while clearly in the wrong originally and being a repeat offender, made a good-faith effort to resolve the situation by working to remove any dependencies on Mazzle's data. If this is true, and Mazzle is still seeking action, then it's pretty much just a grudge at this point.
I don't see Mazzle doing anything right now. This discussion is about an article describing events that took place in the past. We're not arguing that Mazzle should keep or refrain from doing something right now, we're arguing the merits of what he tried to do before.
It's an interesting topic for a general discussion though. Personally I think that it's a bit silly to try to retain too much control over derivatives of freeware open-source software, in the sense that you shouldn't be investing significant amounts of time in it if you care about being "ripped off". Of course, it's still extreme douchebaggery for someone to take something you spent a lot of time on and redistribute it without at least giving credit.
You suffer from a misconception that I see a lot in this community. Just because addons are necessarily distributed as source code does NOT make them "open source." Again, look at books... All the words are printed plain as day for anyone to type up or photocopy. That doesn't give you the right to do so.
Again, look at books... All the words are printed plain as day for anyone to type up or photocopy. That doesn't give you the right to do so.
I spent a decent chunk of my time working at the school library photocopying textbooks. $5 was a much more reasonable price than $100+ for something I bearly used.
I see a parallel argument between WoWHead, WoWDB, Thottbot, etc etc. All these sites have access to central information (World of Warcraft) and each other. If anyone of the sites started datamining each other would you be able to sue them?
Yes. They would be able to sue each other if they started mining from each other, but they would have to show that the offending party did indeed copy the data from them rather than mining it themselves.
Even if they copied the same data structure, like how WoWHead and WoWDB are very similar, the data is still in public domain.
The data source, even if manipulated, is still public domain data.
In your example I'd be able to change the table structure and everything would be fine. This does not strengthen your argument.
Except you ignore my other posts that have said derivative works are equally covered. If you can show that the data was indeed copied and reformatted, then it would be judged a violation of copyright. If you can't prove it then... well... innocent until proven guilty prevails.
You seem to think I'm contradicting myself when I'm not.
I spent a decent chunk of my time working at the school library photocopying textbooks. $5 was a much more reasonable price than $100+ for something I bearly used.
I believe the publisher could sue your school for letting you do that ;P
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well the data isn't available via the API. The API provides a baseline of coordinates that are then hand-tweaked to show the model in the right size/proportion/etc. This data was not created through some data transformation or download, but rather by hand.
You are in the right to request it be removed.
Consider your right defended.
I'm not affiliated with wowinterface in any way beyond having addons hosted there, so i don't see what I can possibly do to solve the problem...
Damn right!
Clad: Why you come here mudslinging and railing I don't understand, but really it seems that Kaelten and you guys need to have a personal chat, and a valium. It really isn't my business... and maybe not even yours.
Cog: Thanks, appreciated.
Mods: Lock per drama policy?
Actually, aside from your own "I can play that way too" posts, this has been a quite civil debate on the matter.
The only drama here is the random shit that's being flung around. I'm well within my right to post my opinions of the situation just as much as anyone else, and that's all that I've done. I didn't attack anyone, I simply stated that I disagreed with Kaelten's opinions, and posted a few minor responses to stuff that had come before me. It really is my business, because I want to ensure that people know where I stand on this issue considering my book is attributed to Kaelten in the article. As I've already stated I've asked for clarification on that point from the author (who paints nothing but an absurdly biased picture of the entire situation). I don't know why the article came out as nasty as it did, but I don't see why me posting my opinions is any different than you posting yours.
I've not attacked you or anyone here, so explain to me how I'm in the wrong.
I agree with Tekkub, there appears to be only one person throwing mud in this thread.
If we want to talk about the good of the community, it is good to have these sorts of conversations (same as we had when the license for Ace2 was being decided) about how things affect us as authors and users. I've already had two people PM me offline for clarification on a few things and I've learned more from then, and they're learned more from me in the process.
One of the things that I've learned is that this complain originally stemmed from the constants table that Benumbed took from Mazzle (along with the rest of the code that drives it). It looks like that data was removed over four months ago from DaPortrait and he worked to rebuild the model constant table on his own (look, the data is now quite different). That means this complaint has moved from a completely valid one that wasn't acted on (due to Kaelten's inability to respond during that time), to a squabble about what constitutes a derivative work in this case.
For the record, when this addon was removed from wowinterface.com, it was a blatant copy in violation of Mazzle's copyright. I'm not a laywer, so I won't speculate on exactly where things stand at the moment. This may help to explain part of Kaelten's stance, information that conveniently didn't make it into the article.
Right, the data was taken from 3rd party API, translated and sized, then stored. Those operations on that data also can not be copyrighted.
It doesn't matter if that data was changed 'by hand' or by a computer program, the data origins are from an outside source and are freely available. The author(s) of the addon do not own the data in question.
Example. I go through the telephone book and add international dialing codes to each phone number in my city. I then publish this information on my city's website home page, at the bottom of each page there is an explicit copyright notice covering all information throughout the site. I find that a local phone store is printing out this information and distributing it to each customer that buys a phone. Can I sue for copyright infringement? I can try but because the information is in the public domain to start with and I am only adding, or translating the information, I have little case to present.
@clad: Glad to hear your clarification on this.
Oh really? The article feels nasty? That wasn't my intention. I agree that the article was biased towards protecting copyright but I felt strongly that the issue was being ignored.
I didn't mean to even attack Kaelten, but he said the things I quoted him as saying. I couldn't ignore his refusal to account for Benumbed's actions.
This would be something to take up in court, but in my personal opinion (which I use to formulate my own responses) there is a hell of a difference between adding information that is already implicit in a given context (your example), and what happened in this case. Sure, you set the model file on the model object and you get a baseline for where the model starts. Then, you have to physically go through and resize and shift the parameters until the model appears as you'd like it to.
There are two things to consider here, one is the way the data was obtained and the other is the fact that the data was simply copied in text VERBATIM without attribution. That is no longer the case, but I don't see your example as applying to this situation. But neither of us is a judge, thankfully.
EDIT: Forgive my presumption. Of course, you could be a judge and I wouldn't know it.
It's an interesting topic for a general discussion though. Personally I think that it's a bit silly to try to retain too much control over derivatives of freeware open-source software, in the sense that you shouldn't be investing significant amounts of time in it if you care about being "ripped off". Of course, it's still extreme douchebaggery for someone to take something you spent a lot of time on and redistribute it without at least giving credit.
In general, copyright is like keeping your children in a cage until they die from lack of care, for fear of them getting piercings and tatoos and growing up to have children of their own (sorry, couldn't think of a good car analogy hehe).
Oh I understand, but even if Mazz pissed me off (he hasn't personally, but thi bullshit is kinda... yea...) I still wouldn't go back on my "my code is open" stance. Kinda ruins the whole thing if I make a special case and decide to enact my copyright when I just said I don't believe in copyright at all.
Yea, it did come across that way. I dunno, maybe you could have written it differently to be more neutral, but it does come across as if you're writing the article for Mazzle directly and not to bring light to a conflict/issue in the community.
Actually, that's exactly what CAN be copyrighted. You can't copyright the data itself, it's the physical expression of the data that is copyrighted. The actual Lua code that mazzle created is what's at issue here. If you went and mined the data yourself and created the table yourself, it wouldn't be a violation of copyright.
To reiterate and put another way, Mazzle doesn't have copyright over the information itself, only the manner in which it is manifested.
From this example what I'm seeing is that information is being data mined, by hand or by script, then being manipulated by size and by location.
I see a parallel argument between WoWHead, WoWDB, Thottbot, etc etc. All these sites have access to central information (World of Warcraft) and each other. If anyone of the sites started datamining each other would you be able to sue them? Even if they copied the same data structure, like how WoWHead and WoWDB are very similar, the data is still in public domain.
The data source, even if manipulated, is still public domain data.
In your example I'd be able to change the table structure and everything would be fine. This does not strengthen your argument.
vs
In this case the data, when knowing how it is organized, is the same.
Whether that's true or not is entirely irrelevant to the "main problem." The main problem is that one person violated the copyright of another. When this violation was made known, nothing was done about it. Your personal opinions of the character of the parties involved has no bearing on the discussion except to incite hostility.
I don't see Mazzle doing anything right now. This discussion is about an article describing events that took place in the past. We're not arguing that Mazzle should keep or refrain from doing something right now, we're arguing the merits of what he tried to do before.
You suffer from a misconception that I see a lot in this community. Just because addons are necessarily distributed as source code does NOT make them "open source." Again, look at books... All the words are printed plain as day for anyone to type up or photocopy. That doesn't give you the right to do so.
I spent a decent chunk of my time working at the school library photocopying textbooks. $5 was a much more reasonable price than $100+ for something I bearly used.
Yes. They would be able to sue each other if they started mining from each other, but they would have to show that the offending party did indeed copy the data from them rather than mining it themselves.
Except you ignore my other posts that have said derivative works are equally covered. If you can show that the data was indeed copied and reformatted, then it would be judged a violation of copyright. If you can't prove it then... well... innocent until proven guilty prevails.
You seem to think I'm contradicting myself when I'm not.
I believe the publisher could sue your school for letting you do that ;P