Could The Enterprise D Replica In Minecraft Be A Copyright Minefield?

from the isn't-copyright-law-great? dept

Thu, Oct 14th 2010 5:52am — Mike Masnick

We've written a few times about the game Minecraft lately, including a post about the guy building a working computer in the game. Around the same time, a bunch of people were talking about the guy who built a full 1:1 scale model of the USS Enterprise D (from Star Trek: The Next Generation) in Minecraft:

This is, indeed, quite cool, and it's inspiring other creations as well. Just recently we heard about a giant Bender from Futurama:

Of course, all of this is raising some question. Public Knowledge points out how this can all conflict with some of the more ridiculous aspects of today's copyright law, and that this could be a very serious issue for people who are just doing something inherently cool without realizing it:

Why? Under US copyright law, a replica of a fictional design like a spaceship could be considered a "derivative work," meaning it is protected by the same copyright that protects Star Trek: The Next Generation.

Viacom owns the Star Trek copyright. If they decide to sue Halkun, the fact that he spent 10 (or 100) hours making his replica, that it's made out of digital blocks, or that he doesn't plan to make money on it may or may not protect him. Either way, in order to find out, he would have to hire a legal team to go up against Viacom. That's a hard (not to mention expensive) way to find out that your USS Enterprise model does not infringe on anyone's copyright.

Who else might be in hot water? The way Minecraft works, if you want to play the game with a group of your friends (or strangers), you have to set up your own server. Let's say Halkun builds a replica of Hogwarts from Harry Potter (which, by the way, would be awesome) on your server. In that case, you could be sued for secondary infringement just for running the server that contains this "infringing" content.

If you think that media lawyers have better things to do than sue you for modeling an imaginary magical castle, you're (unfortunately) mistaken. In 2007, J.K. Rowling sued for $50,000 because someone made a papier-mache replica of Hogwarts' exterior. At a religious festival in India.

When do we realize that copyright law simply isn't designed to handle today's digital age?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, derivative works, minecraft

121 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 5:57am

It's a good thing the pencil and paper wasn't invented recently. The inventor would have been sued into the ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:54am
  
  Re:
  J.K. Rowling is a bitch
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:11am

So is Minecraft an ISP now?
Say there's infringing content from Minecraft...

If an industry sues him, does he pass on that notice to the maker of the Bender bot or tell them to go shove a can opener?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:21am
  
  Re: So is Minecraft an ISP now?
  There is no central server. Each world is generated locally, and the multiplayer servers are set up by private parties. So a notice could be passed to whoever is running the multiplayer server, but Notch (the creator of Minecraft) has nothing to do with it, and no way to know who is running what server.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anon, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:43am
    
    Re: Re: So is Minecraft an ISP now?
    And that's enough to protect him in this crazy world we live in? Doubt it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: So is Minecraft an ISP now?
      Lawmakers should ban minecraft, the latest tool on the scene used to infringe on copyrights!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
out_of_the_blue, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:19am

It's a risk you run when *copying*.
I'm inclined to the view that an "idea" so directly copied in visualization, and that has *no* other source than from the previous material, at least verges on infringment. Does not mean that I support damage awards beyond actual damages, though. But as a matter of principle, if all you've *got* is an ability to copy, don't show it in public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:24am
  
  Re: It's a risk you run when *copying*.
  Ideas cannot be owned.
  
  All art is built on the ideas and techniques of previous artists.
  
  Without the ability to freely copy other artists, the only art we would have would be a few stone or wood sculptures of early hunter-gatherers and some cave paintings greater than 10,000 years old.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:24am
  
  Re: It's a risk you run when *copying*.
  How much actual damage does Viacom suffer from this depiction of the Enterprise D? Other than perhaps extra sales of their products?
  Any lawsuit they'd start against this talented designer, would cause more damage (it tarnishes the Viacom brand as being legal bullies). It would serve them better if they'd issue a "proceed-and-permitted order" instead of a 'cease-and-desist order'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TtfnJohn (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:51am
  
  Re: It's a risk you run when *copying*.
  Before the digital age you could make an exterior of Hogwarts in papier-mache for a religious festival anywhere, much less India, and no one would have batted an eye.
  
  No one would have batted an eye if the neighbourhood talented modeler, child or adult, has made a model of the USS Enterprise and many did.
  
  Most of this was done for the sheer fun and challenge of it not for any profit or to infringe on anyone's rights.
  
  It was done then, as now, to honour the creator not take something from them. These are cultural touchstones and people will copy them for almost any reason than to damage a franchise.
  
  In neither case does it appear that this has been done for commercial reasons.
  
  So, does Viacom send copyright "cops" to sci-fi and Star Trek cons to bust anyone dressed in a character from the show instead of buying it from an approved costumer maker?
  
  Sometimes the chasing of infringers, such as Rowling's suit, verges on the ridiculous. Wouldn't it have been much better to tell the model makers how honoured she was and to suggest they ask permission next time rather than take the fastest route to the courts?
  
  Let's see if Viacom take the creation, in the game, of Enterprise D in the spirit that it was done. To celebrate a cultural touchstone not to take from it.
  
  To quote Charlie Brown: "Good grief!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Freak, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:19am

Copyright law not ready to handle digital age?
It sounds to me more like current copyright law isn't ready for any age.

Really? A papier-mache replica? At a religious festival?

To my mind, that sounds like a huge amount of free publicity and an easy way to get fans re-excited in the franchise, probably visibly increasing merchandise sales. It's about the last thing I'd imagine someone would want to sue over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- martyburns (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: Copyright law not ready to handle digital age?
  Especially someone who already has a gazillion quid in the bank..
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:40am

This is going on all over the place. On the PS3, I have Little Big Planet (awesome) and ModNation Racers (kinda lame). These games are filled with lots of stuff like this. Some of the most popular downloads are Nintendo characters.

Considering how protective Nintendo is of their trademarks and that they haven't done anything about it for years now, I'm guessing that there is nothing they can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:41am

When do we realize that copyright law simply isn't designed to handle today's digital age?

Huh? Copyright law adapts and changes with the times. Are you just not paying attention, or is your default to go straight to copyright FUD? Don't answer that. I know it's the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:14am
  
  Re:
  If you would read more about copyright law, you'd know the answer. And that is: it's not FUD.
  Copyright law as it stands today is as far removed from our current digital age as can be, and the people who are now making money of that antiquated law, want to keep it that way, or make it even more draconian.
  
  Ever heard of the DMCA? Or ACTA?
  Or are you just here to troll?
  
  Don't answer that last question. It was rhetorical.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    I see the law as having changes and adapted as new technologies are created. From the player piano, radio, VCR, MP3 player, etc. The law changes with the times. To suggest otherwise is to ignore history. You may not like how the law has changed with the times, but that doesn't change the fact that it changes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:23am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It has changed with the times. It has changed to fight the changing times as hard as the lobbyists can make it. It has changed to screw the average person as much a physically possible.
      
      As you have stated it is lying by omission, and makes you an asshole.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Huh? You know, I'd be happy to chat with you, but it's hard to take you seriously if you're just going to call people names.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Xander C (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:04am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ttttttttttrrrrololo lolo looloo
        lololol
        
        troooolll lolo lolo lol lo lollollollollo!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm here to chat and have intelligent conversation. Want to try that too?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm here to chat and have intelligent conversation. Want to try that too?
        
        Intelligent conversation like accusing me of being intellectually dishonest, without being able to back that up, or apologize when called on it?
        
        Yeah. Ok.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:49pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In my opinion, pretty much every single article you write about IP is intellectually dishonest. You ignore everything that differs from your opinion, and you give too much weight to anything that agrees with it. Some balance would be nice. That's all I'm saying.
        
        I know you don't like balance though. :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In my opinion, pretty much every single article you write about IP is intellectually dishonest. You ignore everything that differs from your opinion, and you give too much weight to anything that agrees with it. Some balance would be nice. That's all I'm saying.
        
        Hmm. I quite frequently write about stuff that differs from my opinion, and explain why I believe it's wrong. So I'm afraid your complaint doesn't hold up to much scrutiny.
        
        As for "balance," it's not that "I don't like it," it's that it doesn't make much sense. If you have two parties who disagree, and one is based on facts and the other is not, does balance make sense, or do you expect people to tell you what's what?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Writing about stuff that differs from your opinion and explaining why you think it's wrong doesn't mean you're being intellectually honest.
        
        I think you're so locked into your view, a view that is anything but central and balanced, that you don't even see how unbalanced your view is. Do you even realize that your views are extreme and at one end of the spectrum? Seriously, I wonder.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Writing about stuff that differs from your opinion and explaining why you think it's wrong doesn't mean you're being intellectually honest.
        
        Huh? You claimed I *ignored* views that opposed mine. I do not. You were being intellectually dishonest. My focus is in establishing *truth*. That means I'm willing to look at *any* argument and then discuss what makes sense and what doesn't. I think that's the very core of intellectual honesty.
        
        I'm still at a loss as to how you find me to be intellectually dishonest.
        
        I think you're so locked into your view, a view that is anything but central and balanced
        
        I see. So "central and balanced" is better than being "correct"? Interesting...
        
        that you don't even see how unbalanced your view is. Do you even realize that your views are extreme and at one end of the spectrum?
        
        It's not about being central or balanced. It's about being correct. I'm only interested in truth.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:00am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I see. So "central and balanced" is better than being "correct"? Interesting..."
        
        It's called the middle ground fallacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 8:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Middle ground fallacy. *
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 4:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "I think you're so locked into your view, a view that is anything but central and balanced, that you don't even see how unbalanced your view is. Do you even realize that your views are extreme and at one end of the spectrum? Seriously, I wonder."
        
        Since you don't seem interested in answering Mike's questions, perhaps you might a couple of specific ones of mine?
        
        I've just been looking up daft wine label names and there's one from Argentina called "Marge 'n' Tina". Now To me this seems derivative of a 1970's Goodies sketch in which Tim Brook-Taylor sang "Don't cry for me Marge 'n' Tina" (itself derivative of the famous song of course).
        
        As I understand current copyright rulings, the copyright holder of the Goodies would stand a reasonable chance of sueing the wine label and winning "damages" over the "stolen" idea. At the very least it would force the wine label to spend money on a settlement or on a legal battle rather than the case being dismissed. Would you agree or dissagree that this can happen?
        
        If such a parody were created today, the rights holder for the original song could legitimately claim damages under current law for the Goodies' song and again force at the least an expensive legal fight. Yes or no?
        
        If the answer to either of the above questions is yes, do *you* personally consider this to be a good or a bad thing? And if good, why?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 15 Oct 2010 @ 7:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's called the middle ground fallacy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 2:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's called the middle ground fallacy.
        
        Ah, neat. I actually had not known about that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2010 @ 11:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not that I think the middle must be correct, it's that I think, in general, when somebody's views are so far to one side, they are usually not taking everything into account.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2010 @ 9:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I would not be surprised to find out that a poll of Americans would result in more than 50% agreeing with the majority or even main points Mike has.
        
        That said, I'd sure love to see more examples of the many ways Mike is going astray rather than simply reading allegations that he is.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 17 Oct 2010 @ 11:54pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's not that I think the middle must be correct, it's that I think, in general, when somebody's views are so far to one side, they are usually not taking everything into account.
        
        You know what your problem is? You think there are only two sides to this debate, so any discussion is about "where" on the spectrum you are. I'm not far to one side or the other, because there isn't a single line here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 6:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet, you still don't produce the magical evidence that proves you're right. LOL! No links, Mike. Use your super-smart teacher mind to convince us. Hint: no such proof exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Oct 2010 @ 10:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And yet, you still don't produce the magical evidence that proves you're right. LOL! No links, Mike. Use your super-smart teacher mind to convince us. Hint: no such proof exists.
        
        AJ, if you're looking for "proof" that the economics I discuss are correct, you're always going to find wiggle room. What I said was not that it's 100% proof, but that the evidence -- research, data, statistics -- all supports the position. Thus, in scientific terms, the hypothesis remains supported by data.
        
        I'm still looking for the data that supports your position. I haven't seen it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 19 Oct 2010 @ 7:20am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        AJ, if you're looking for "proof" that the economics I discuss are correct, you're always going to find wiggle room. What I said was not that it's 100% proof, but that the evidence -- research, data, statistics -- all supports the position. Thus, in scientific terms, the hypothesis remains supported by data.
        
        I'm still looking for the data that supports your position. I haven't seen it.
        
        Ah, wiggle room! Just how much room are we talking about? Enough so that it could be completely wrong? Voodoo.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:43am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Changed after a lot of bad laws and initiatives, maybe you don't remember but before those laws changed to their ultimate forms there was a lot that came before and failed.
      
      Just like the newer initiatives that have no ground in reality will fail with time.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      People had to fight hard to get copyright changed in the right way to follow technology trends.
      According to Hollywood execs was the VCR the "Boston strangler" for them. And wanted it made illegal. Thankfully, a technology-wise judge decided against them, in favour of the VCR. Sadly this is a lonely case nowadays. It more often than not is becoming more and more expensive to stand up for our rights to copy, and it's far to easy for the copyright holders to just squelch anything that smacks of deviation from their view of how things should be. (A DMCA take-down is so easily done nowadays, it's ridiculous, and then you, the derivative maker will have to show what your intentions were.)
      
      Time and time again, we, the people have had to fight for our rights in the copyright world. And time and time again we have strong forces who want to take those rights away, and want to change copyright law into something even more ridiculous.
      
      Why does it have to take Life (of the copyright holder)+70 years before a work enters public domain? Why can companies become copyright holders?
      And when exactly do companies die? We, effectively, have perpetual copyright.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, there were people opposed to the VCR, but that didn't stop the VCR from entering the market. And it didn't stop the law from changing. Whenever some people want to change the law, there invariably will be others who oppose the change. It's not terribly interesting to point this out.
        
        I'm not really sure how you figure there is "right to copy." If you think there is, I suppose you'll always be disappointed with the state of copyright law. The First Amendment gives you the right to make your own speech, not to copy the speech of others.
        
        As far as the length of copyright goes, there are arguments on both sides of the debate. Personally, I'm more interested in learning about the opposing views than I am for picking one side and saying it's the correct view.
        
        We're getting a bit tangential here, though. My point still stands: Copyright laws change with the times. It always has and it always will. To suggest that the law won't adapt to the changing times is pure FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        We're getting a bit tangential here, though. My point still stands: Copyright laws change with the times. It always has and it always will. To suggest that the law won't adapt to the changing times is pure FUD.
        
        Heh. This is not an accurate view of copyright history. If you look at the history of copyright it has not so much "changed with the times," as it has been "used by a few specific industries to hold back progress." Copyright has "changed" in one direction, and one direction only. If you go through all of the changes to copyright law in the last century (plus a year if you want to include the 1909 act) you will see that it has only changed to expand the powers of the holder, against the public domain. There is only one exception: making all federal documents public domain.
        
        Other than that, the changes have only served to make the public worse off, to the benefit of the holders.
        
        Pretending that copyright has been flexibly is to ignore history and to ignore the power of regulatory capture.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't think the decision in Sony benefited the public? Strange. I like my DVR.
        
        I'm not going to argue with you, Mike. I know you think copyright doesn't ever do the public any good. That's just crazy. Let's leave it at that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You don't think the decision in Sony benefited the public? Strange. I like my DVR.
        
        One single caselaw decision that went the right way is not exactly an example of copyright law adjusting to the times, now is it?
        
        I'm not going to argue with you, Mike. I know you think copyright doesn't ever do the public any good. That's just crazy. Let's leave it at that.
        
        No, we're not going to "just leave it" with you making a statement with absolutely nothing to back it up.
        
        Stand up for yourself, man. If you have evidence, present it.
        
        We'll wait.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You'll never be pleased by anything I say, Mike, because you are so incredibly closed-minded and so narrowly focused.
        
        The example of Sony is an example of "copyright law adjusting to the times." I don't really understand how you could view it as otherwise. That you don't see it as such is just another example of how you view all of this stuff with blinders on.
        
        There's just so much evidence out there that it never ceases to amaze me that you can't see any of it. I could list a million things and you would say that there isn't a single one.
        
        We've already been down this road, Mike, and it's not very fruitful.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You'll never be pleased by anything I say, Mike, because you are so incredibly closed-minded and so narrowly focused.
        
        Again with the insults with no basis. So strange.
        
        It's not about me being "pleased." I'm asking for evidence.
        
        The example of Sony is an example of "copyright law adjusting to the times." I don't really understand how you could view it as otherwise. That you don't see it as such is just another example of how you view all of this stuff with blinders on.
        
        But that wasn't "copyright law" adjusting to the times. It was the courts interpreting things -- and it's one of an EXTREMELY FEW caselaw examples that turned out that way. That's hardly an example of how copyright law adjusts. The law didn't adjust, the courts read the law properly.
        
        There's just so much evidence out there that it never ceases to amaze me that you can't see any of it. I could list a million things and you would say that there isn't a single one.
        
        And yet you don't present any.
        
        We've already been down this road, Mike, and it's not very fruitful.
        
        Have we? Who are you? I'm always willing to accept evidence that proves me wrong. So I'm afraid you may have me mistaken with someone else. If you have evidence, present it already. Why do you resort to just insisting I won't listen to it when you don't actually present any?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But courts are an integral part of how laws change over time. Don't discount the role of the judiciary.
        
        I'm not presenting any evidence because the whole exercise is just a farce. You don't think there's ever been any evidence that shows IP has done any good ever in the history of the world. How can anyone take you seriously if that's your position? I read lots of interesting papers in the copyright debate, but none that take your approach. You're so fringe it hurts.
        
        And Mike, I know you know who I am. Pretending like you don't know who I am is just further evidence of your being intellectually dishonest. You know my real name. You know where I live. I bet you even know what school I go to. Don't play dumb.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Any Mouse, 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You keep insisting that bit of case law /changed/ copyright law. It didn't. It /confirmed/ a part of the law. Big difference. I'm getting an itchy feeling you're one of RJR's goons, who never provide proof to support their arguments, either. They only say 'it's out there, look for it.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:31pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm getting an itchy feeling you're one of RJR's goons
        
        I don't think so. RJR's goons only focus on patent stories. And they show up in groups.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:20pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        But courts are an integral part of how laws change over time. Don't discount the role of the judiciary.
        
        The judiciary interprets the law. They are not supposed to change it. "Judicial activism" and all that.
        
        I'm not presenting any evidence because the whole exercise is just a farce.
        
        Huh? How do you figure. I present evidence. How is it a farce to present the evidence you insist exists? It sounds like you're admitting it doesn't exist.
        
        You don't think there's ever been any evidence that shows IP has done any good ever in the history of the world. How can anyone take you seriously if that's your position?
        
        I never said that. Again, we're talking in the aggregate. There's no doubt that it has benefited some people. I just think that the evidence suggests in the aggregate, it has not helped.
        
        I read lots of interesting papers in the copyright debate, but none that take your approach.
        
        Then you really ought to expand you're reading list.
        
        And Mike, I know you know who I am. Pretending like you don't know who I am is just further evidence of your being intellectually dishonest. You know my real name. You know where I live. I bet you even know what school I go to. Don't play dumb.
        
        I really don't. Seriously. There are plenty of commenters here who I do know, and can tell who they are even though they post anonymously. You, however, I have no clue who you are. You do not appear to be a regular commenter from your IP address. I have no clue who you are.
        
        So again, I'll ask, who are you?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2010 @ 11:54am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Mike, the judiciary is an integral part of the law since judges interpret the law. I'm not talking about legislating from the bench, I'm talking about applying the law to a given fact pattern. New fact patterns arise all the time, and judges have to figure out how to apply the law to those facts. That application changes the understanding of the law in general. Stare decisis and all that.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 1:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And Mike, I know you know who I am.
        
        So what? I can't see any difference it makes since none of your arguments hold any water.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:57am
  
  Re:
  If by adapting and changing, you mean become more draconian and stringent, then I guess you're right.
  
  Of course, you are wrong though. Copyright was devised during a time when he printing press was friggin expensive for Joe Peasant to own. Copying back then was a luxury, as such only the rich were able to do it on mass production levels. Now, Joe Peasant can mass produce any digital good, at close to zero cost. Copyright has yet to realize this and continues to be an encumbrance to the citizens , who are the ones giving the copyright holder their "rights".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:18am
    
    Re: Re:
    I don't think it's really fair to pick a point in time and say that's what copyright is all about. Copyright is fluid, and it changes over time. That's my point.
    
    I think you miss the point of the printing press. It made copying cheaper, easier, and faster. People no longer needed to copy things by hand. Copyright does embrace that copying is cheaper and easier... that's the whole point. The easier it is to infringe on other people's rights, the more those rights need to be protected.
    
    Are you suggesting that unless copyright just gives in and stops recognizing people's rights, then it's not working? If so, then I don't really follow you there.
    
    I don't think copyright is too draconian. If anything, I think more copyright laws would be a good thing. As things are, there's too much gray area. Clearer laws would benefit everyone since the bounds of copyright law would be better defined. It would be more black and white, and less gray.
    
    I'm sure you disagree, but I wouldn't say you're "wrong." We simply disagree.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Maybe you should tell us "what copyright is all about" as it is today and then tell us what it was "all about" at its creation from your point of view. We will start there.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um, no thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 11:00am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I don't think it's really fair to pick a point in time and say that's what copyright is all about. Copyright is fluid, and it changes over time. That's my point.
      
      Copyright was designed for a single purpose: to promote the progress, by creating incentives to create. If it is not doing so, then it is failing. Today, it is failing.
      
      Copyright does embrace that copying is cheaper and easier... that's the whole point. The easier it is to infringe on other people's rights, the more those rights need to be protected.
      
      That is not true. Only if such copying takes away the incentives to create -- and yet the evidence suggests exactly the opposite. Today there is more creativity, more output, and more people making money from their creative output -- often by ignoring the rights that copyright provides.
      
      You don't need more protectionism. As the mercantilists learned 230 years ago, protectionism in the fact of innovation is a recipe for disaster.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright gives lots of people incentives to create. All you have to do is open your eyes and you'd see examples of that all around you. Looks like it's working just fine to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:23pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I create without copyright just fine. Looks like people ignoring copyright is working just fine to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:34pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, some people are incentivized without copyright. I myself recorded an album at my own expense and gave it away for free.
        
        But other people are incentivized with copyright. Lots of people wouldn't create but for the protection copyright gives them.
        
        It works both ways.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, except when it comes to the crafting of laws, then it only works the one way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't really follow you. Copyright laws exist to incentivize, and they do in fact incentivize. What's the problem?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 2:14pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        How does copyright lasting centuries help the public? Who are making illegal replicas of imaginary starships anyway.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:44pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sure, some people are incentivized without copyright. I myself recorded an album at my own expense and gave it away for free.
        
        But other people are incentivized with copyright. Lots of people wouldn't create but for the protection copyright gives them.
        
        It works both ways.
        
        Indeed. It works both ways, and the purpose of copyright is to encourage what's best in aggregate. Too bad the evidence suggests weaker or no copyright is better in the aggregate.
        
        You're like those TV commentators who say "well, one side says this and the other side says that" without ever looking to see which side is right. Evidence matters. You should look at it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 2:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh, the evidence just isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is. You can't point me to any evidence that once and for all ends the debate without question. No such evidence exists.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 4:00pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh, the evidence just isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is. You can't point me to any evidence that once and for all ends the debate without question. No such evidence exists.
        
        This is true. I'll grant you that. Part of the problem is that it's difficult to prove what would have happened "in the absence" of a certain law. And yet, if you look at the cases where 1:1 comparisons are possible *every single time* it shows that copyright did not help matters. This makes sense, economically, because monopolies on abundant goods are especially problematic.
        
        But, surely, if you're so sure of yourself, you must have some studies or data to the contrary? That's all I'm asking for...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:51pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's just more to the equation than your narrow economic analysis. And there are studies that come down on both sides of the debate, which you know.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's just more to the equation than your narrow economic analysis. And there are studies that come down on both sides of the debate, which you know.
        
        I've not seen ones that stand up to scrutiny, no. But if you've fond one, I'd like to see it. And, um, honestly, what else should be in the equation?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        techflaws.org (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 1:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Lots of people wouldn't create but for the protection copyright gives them.
        
        Says who? You? Well, it must be true then.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Copyright gives lots of people incentives to create. All you have to do is open your eyes and you'd see examples of that all around you. Looks like it's working just fine to me.
        
        *sigh*
        
        And you accuse *me* of being intellectually dishonest and full of FUD? The purpose of copyright is not to create incentives for an individual to create, but to see if it creates more incentives *in aggregate*. That's where the evidence is lacking.
        
        Yes, I'm sure that the sugar monopoly encouraged one firm to focus on selling sugar. That didn't make it a good thing for society.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 2:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's the source of your claim that the "purpose of copyright is not to create incentives for an individual to create, but to see if it creates more incentives *in aggregate*"? Aren't individuals doing the creating? I don't really follow you here.
        
        Society looks like it's doing very well to me.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 4:03pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What's the source of your claim that the "purpose of copyright is not to create incentives for an individual to create, but to see if it creates more incentives *in aggregate*"? Aren't individuals doing the creating? I don't really follow you here.
        
        Hmm. Because if it wasn't in the aggregate, then you could argue that if copyright makes one person better off, and the rest of the world worse off, then it's fulfilled its job.
        
        That makes no sense. The obvious idea is for the benefit to be the *net* benefit, and thus it's the aggregate numbers that make sense.
        
        I'm confused as to how you might argue otherwise. Are you really trying to suggest that a copyright law that makes the net result worse off is somehow okay? Do you really wish to support that position?
        
        I didn't think anything I said was controversial, but now I'm confused about your position.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying. I will say that the argument that, in the aggregate, we're worse off with copyright than we would be without it is controversial to say the least. I agree that the law can always be improved, but the idea that dumping copyright outright is just silly. Do you really think this country would be as great as it is without copyright? I don't.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:28pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I see what you're saying now. Thanks for clarifying. I will say that the argument that, in the aggregate, we're worse off with copyright than we would be without it is controversial to say the least. I agree that the law can always be improved, but the idea that dumping copyright outright is just silly. Do you really think this country would be as great as it is without copyright? I don't.
        
        Hmm. Saying that we're worse off with copyright then without it does not necessarily mean dump copyright. There could be a middle ground that is more optimal. I'm certainly open to that possibility. The evidence suggests it's unlikely.
        
        And, no, in answer to your question, I think think our cultural heritage and our economic output would, undoubtedly, be significantly higher without copyright than with the copyright we have today. I believe that's only "silly" or "controversial" to those who have not looked at the research or who don't understand economics.
        
        What it comes down to is whether or not you believe that mercantilism works. Copyright is a mercantilist program that focuses on protectionism. I believe that history and economics have shown that such programs are economically limiting. They make a few better off at the expense of everyone else, and create a net negative on economic growth. Again, if you don't believe that, I'd really like to see your evidence.
        
        It's not like I woke up one day and said "copyright sucks." Like many people I was a believer in the value of copyright for a long time, until I started understanding the economics and then looking at the evidence.
        
        So far, however, you have not presented any evidence or research or even economic explanation for your position. You seem to be taking a faith-based position on copyright, like so many others. To me, there is nothing more intellectually dishonest than attacking those who have evidence with faith-based claims. If you really have evidence, please present it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2010 @ 11:57am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And you don't think there's any evidence anywhere that copyright has ever done anybody any good. I just can't take you seriously, Mike.
        
        I'd like to see your evidence. We both know you can't prove it. That's why you always talk about all the evidence you have, but you never present this magical evidence.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jose_X, 16 Oct 2010 @ 9:18pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Are you reading carefully?
        
        How many times has Mike talked about the value of a net gain in the aggregate?
        
        Where .. really where did he say that no individual entity has gained from copyright or from any monopoly? For example, he said, "Yes, I'm sure that the sugar monopoly encouraged one firm to focus on selling sugar. That didn't make it a good thing for society."
        
        Promoting the progress means that there is a net gain for society.
        
        ....
        
        Oh, I get it. You are a troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 10:04pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "And you don't think there's any evidence anywhere that copyright has ever done anybody any good. I just can't take you seriously, Mike."
        
        Seriously? I would think you are unable to read, but Occam tells me that you are just being dense on purpose.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:49am
  
  Re:
  Huh? Copyright law adapts and changes with the times.
  
  Um. Isn't the very point of this article that it has not done so?
  
  Are you just not paying attention, or is your default to go straight to copyright FUD?
  
  I'm paying pretty close attention actually. You should try it. You'd be outraged.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Yes, that's the point of this article. My point is that this article is more techdirt anti-copyright FUD.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yes, that's the point of this article. My point is that this article is more techdirt anti-copyright FUD.
      
      Heh. I love how you just keep calling it FUD and calling people names, without providing any evidence to back up your position.
      
      That's what FUD is. Sorry, buddy, but I back up my positions with facts. That's why it's not FUD. Try again.
      
      We'll be waiting.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 2:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your take on IP is FUD. That's my opinion.
        
        What are these facts? I'm waiting for you to wow me with your amazing facts. I haven't seen any yet.
        
        You find little examples that you inflate to mean more than they do, and you completely ignore big examples that don't fit into your views. That's not fact-finding, that's FUD.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 4:08pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your take on IP is FUD. That's my opinion.
        
        Fear, uncertainty and doubt? In showing people how more musicians are making more money? That seems like hope, not FUD.
        
        What are these facts? I'm waiting for you to wow me with your amazing facts. I haven't seen any yet.
        
        Really? I've presented the numbers on how the music industry is making more money, consistently (same with the movie industry) as these technological shifts have happened (i.e., as they've lost more control over copyright). I've also shown studies that looked at like:like markets with and without copyright (such as EU/US database rights or on gov't weather data) and, again, the evidence shows that there is a much bigger market and much more money made in the absence of copyrights.
        
        You find little examples that you inflate to mean more than they do, and you completely ignore big examples that don't fit into your views. That's not fact-finding, that's FUD.
        
        Hmm. I always find this funny. I present aggregate evidence, and people say "but how does it work for individuals." Then I present examples of how it works for individuals and people like you say "but that doesn't work in the aggregate."
        
        If someone's spreading FUD here, it's not me...
        
        As for "examples," let's be clear. The examples I show of individuals is to show how it works at the micro level.
        
        Anyway what "big examples" don't fit my views? I don't recall anyone presenting any. So that would be helpful if you have them.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:57pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What big examples don't fit your view? Let's start with your position that IP has never done any good.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:30pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        What big examples don't fit your view? Let's start with your position that IP has never done any good.
        
        Huh? That's not an example.
        
        And I never said that "IP has never done any good." I, again, (as I already explained to you) was discussing in the aggregate. There's no doubt that some folks have benefited from copyright. What the evidence shows is that they've done this at great harm to the rest of society, and the net is almost certainly negative.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Oct 2010 @ 11:58am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again with this claim that the evidence clearly shows your position is the correct one. Put up or shut up. Show me this evidence. Convince me. You cannot. Nor will you ever be able to.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        teka, 17 Oct 2010 @ 1:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Convince me. You cannot. Nor will you ever be able to.
        
        thanks!
        With just a few plain words you have made yourself perfectly clear. You are not interested in "learning" anything or having a conversation about the topic at hand.
        
        You come merely to regurgitate claims and make hollow declarations. Interesting the way you ignore requests the Amazing data you claim exists all over the place, then turn around to say "show me this evidence"
        
        Heck, lets try this. assume Neither side is correct. No one has data either way. In this case, the only reasonable (and some would say the only lawful) reaction is to make Less laws. Make Fewer restrictions.
        
        Remember, copyright is not a "right". It is a government granted free-pass for taking away someone Else's natural rights to create anything they wish.
        
        Such an incredibly dangerous power should be used sparingly or not at all in the face of the harm it will cause, but the laws have been moving the opposite direction at every junction.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 18 Oct 2010 @ 10:06pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Hint: The evidence has been written about on this site you're trolling but are too lazy to read.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:02pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Why don't you come up with proof that this is indeed FUD?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 6:46am

Take down the Bender shrine? Bite my shiny metal ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:00am
  
  Re:
  I'd say "bite my splintery, wooden ass" but he's made out of stone. Maybe "bite my mossy, petrified ass"?
  
  Yeah, the 500 foot tall bender is much cooler then my zombie infested underground alter.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DocMenach (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's too bad they couldn't make the 500 foot tall bender also shoot fire out of it's mouth and shout "Remember Me".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Berenerd (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:15am

So what you all are saying is...
I should stop building my 1:1 replica of Serenity out of toothpicks and empty pens in my back yard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James B, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:18am

Fan art and fan fiction also technically infringement of copy right for the same derivative work reason. However, as long as it is small scale and not done for profit, most copyright holders tolerate it (some embrace it) because it helps maintain an excited fan base. I think these works would be considered fan art. I don't think the studios will interfere (disappointed fans, bad press etc...), but hey, they have done dumber things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:42am
  
  Re:
  No, actually fan art and fan fiction does not infringe on copyright. Copyright only covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. They may infringe on trademark, but that's another argument.
  
  I believe this was covered with the "the wind done gone" thing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, fan fiction/art infringes as 'derivative' works. It's a stupid addition to copyright law, as far as I'm concerned, but there you go.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:18am

Shouldn't rightsholders have to use a notic/take down process on minecraft servers, leaving their owners not liable for user creations?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:32am
  
  Re:
  Even if they are told to take down the server I bet it would just be moved underground if he really gets people to help build. Set it so that you can only connect by IP and password and just figure a way to send invites to people who really want to help.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Xander C (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 8:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    As it is, this is how Online Multiplayer works currently. The user has to manually enter in an IP address and Port number, like many old school games before it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:36am
  
  Re:
  No, silly. You have to file for that kind of protection. It's not available to just anyone who throws up a server like copyright is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 7:24am

"When do we realize that copyright law simply isn't designed to handle today's digital age?"

When people start baking cookies with augmented reality symbols that show "F*** You Entertainment Industry" when you see them through your mobile phone.

Oh wait that is not a bad idea the little ones would love to watch furry characters playing around on top of their cookies :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:04am

Just an FYI on the Hogwarts / Rowling suit. The festival was going to use the replica to make money. They were going to charge people money to walk through this huge replica. Rowling wanted 50k for a license that allowed them to do this. They probably would not have cared if there was no intent to make money and market the building.

The Minecraft Enterprise is the same thing. Notch isn't distributing the Enterprise in his game. Nor is the creator selling the world file. It was made in his spare time, and as far as I know, is kept to himself and not explicitly endorsed as a real/license Star Trek property.

This entire sue happy idea is stretching it a bit, dont you think? That isn't to say that some company may want to step in at some point. But it would be like a movie company suing a 3D Software maker because they can build stuff in that, too. Or suing Adobe because someone might be able to sketch The Hulk in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  You're right that this is being stretching a bit. Intellectual honesty is not something you'll find on techdirt. This site is dedicated to IP FUD, plain and simple.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike Masnick (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're right that this is being stretching a bit. Intellectual honesty is not something you'll find on techdirt. This site is dedicated to IP FUD, plain and simple.
    
    I take serious offense to that. Intellectual honesty is of the utmost importance to me, and I'm careful to call out intellectual dishonesty on all sides of the debate when I see it. I've called out the anti-copyright crowd when I've seen them overhyping stuff just as I've called out the pro-copyright crowd.
    
    For someone who mocked someone else for just tossing around insults, you should look in the mirror.
    
    I take intellectual honesty incredibly seriously, and ask that you take back your slur, if you are intellectually honest yourself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:04pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sorry to have offended you, Mike. In my opinion, your opinion tends to be dishonest FUD.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:32pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Dishonest fear, uncertainty and doubt?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:37pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's just an incomplete view of IP on techdirt that gets old. It's dishonest in that it's so narrowly construed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Just like intellectual property laws!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "There's just an incomplete view of IP on techdirt that gets old."
        
        You mean as old as works that still aren't in the public domain and really should be.
        
        BTW, you are free to give us a more complete view if you wish. Oh, and before I forget, please provide evidence too, not just guesswork.
        
        "It's dishonest in that it's so narrowly construed."
        
        The comments here are open for you and others. The only thing dishonest is the incomplete view that the MSM gives whereby they leverage their govt imposed competitive advantage to present only one side of the issue while censoring all the problems with IP (ie: copy protection length) and all the criticisms of it. That's dishonest. How can you call Techdirt dishonest when Techdirt allows you to speak your mind and criticize your critics? Why don't you look at the dishonest mainstream media which would never dare to criticize IP but instead only criticizes "piracy".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Piracy? Why that's stealing, same as actual theft, and I should know as I heard on the news." - Joe Public
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 5:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You've yet to prove that. After reading the other comments, you've yet to find proof of anything you want to back up other than one case law. I find it very hard to follow your viewpoint otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Infamous Joe (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    What is scary is not so much if these companies are taking legal action- it is that under current IP law they *can*.
    
    Our culture is being taken from us, and you seem okay with it. Sad.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:11pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Disney actually took down a bunch of very old Disney videos from Youtube, partly because many of them had raciest or prejudice inferences. Disney doesn't want the public to see the type of content it used to have. This is an abuse of copyright law. The public should be allowed to see what kind of content was made a long time ago and learn from it and learn the inferences from it so that they can better ascertain the type of environment that existed in the past. Our laws are outrageously unacceptable and they need to be corrected.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Free Capitalist (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 11:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hate to say it, especially as a former copyright supporter, but "death to copyright" is catching on quick as a concept these days. This is not to say that MM is all about IP FUD, you can read through this blog (not the comments so much) and see that.
    
    If they honestly care about the system at all, copyright supporters should distance themselves from the popular "enforcement" discussions (such as ACTA, Hadopi, the U.K.'s DEA) and demand the discussion change back to sensible copyright reform for the modern era.
    
    One cannot expect to secure one's rights by taking away the rights of another without making some new enemies. As I see it, the only possible way to stop the de facto death of copyright (by practice, not law) is to stop ACTA, Hadopi, Britain's DEA, the Copyright and Counterfeit bill, and all other heads of this hydra that might spring up.
    
    Enforcement should not enable censorship, abuse of due process, further gutting of the 1st and 4th amendment, non-participatory infringement or regulatory capture. These methods are certain death for copyright.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The Infamous Joe (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 5:18pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You make an excellent point. I can't speak for anyone else, but I am not anti-copyright, I am anti-extremist. It sure seems that the pro-IP crowd is trying its damnedest to strip the entire world of privacy rights in an effort to keep their outdated gravy train going, and chilling effects be damned.
      
      I would easily get behind a system that actually gives people (not just a lucky few) a reason not only to create (the carrot) but a reason to *continue* creating (the stick) by having a very short monopoly. I would like to think many people who comment here against Big Media would get behind that.
      
      I can appreciate why the incumbent IP people wouldn't want to restore sanity to IP laws: for years they have been making the carrot bigger and the stick smaller, anyone who doesn't see (or care) about the bigger picture would want the very same thing.
      
      My (rambling) point is that we all need to look at the bigger picture, as you seem to be, and make decisions, not based on the good of any one industry, but instead based on the good of society as a whole.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - herodotus (profile), 15 Oct 2010 @ 7:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    I think that you should know that posts like yours that have gradually led me to, more or less, take the position opposite to yours. In other words, you are scoring goals for the opposing team.
    
    I am a 'content producer' (god how I loathe that term) whose IP has definitely been pirated on numerous occasions.
    
    At the same time, my infringing activities have been quite limited, consisting of listening to a few CDs that people have burned for me, which have led me to actually buy CDs by the same artists (Fantomas and the Melvins to be specific).
    
    In other words, my initial position was strongly pro-IP.
    
    But when I read exchanges like this, I can't help but notice that you (and by 'you' I mean any number of anonymous people who share your posting habits) prevaricate consistently and almost never even try to present evidence. Instead you resort to ad hominem attacks almost to the exclusion of anything else.
    
    In short, your practice of calling Mike dishonest, and then acting the way you do makes you looks bad.
    
    You might want to rethink your strategy.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:25pm
  
  Re:
  This entire sue happy idea is stretching it a bit, dont you think? That isn't to say that some company may want to step in at some point. But it would be like a movie company suing a 3D Software maker because they can build stuff in that, too. Or suing Adobe because someone might be able to sketch The Hulk in it.
  
  Or something as crazy as a comic book company suing a game company because individuals playing the game could make superhero characters like Spiderman and Wolverine, that would infringe on copyrights and/or trademarks.
  
  Oh, wait... as Rikuo pointed out, that DID happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 10:21am

Star Trek fan productions and Viacom
I'd have to say at this point in time, the Minecraft Enterprise-D maker is safe. Only because of the way in which Viacom appears to have accepted other Star Trek fan based creations, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek_fan_productions . Seeing them not as attempts to profit on Viacoms copyrights, but treating them as free advertising and not infringements.

Of course their current position on the issue could just as easily become void tomorrow. That change could happen based solely on who is in charge or how much profit their legal counsel tells them they're allegedly loosing to fan-based productions by diluting their property. Fortunately for now, they seem to be acting like civilized humans and not alienating their fan base by getting all sue happy on everything, albeit in this one instance.

If you think that media lawyers have better things to do than sue you for modeling an imaginary magical castle, you're (unfortunately) mistaken. In 2007, J.K. Rowling sued for $50,000 because someone made a papier-mache replica of Hogwarts' exterior. At a religious festival in India.

Perhaps they ought to manufacture a few of the Star Trek ships (scaled down) out of papier-mache for their next festival, and see how far "Viacom" will or won't go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 12:19pm

Case law
This reminds me a while back, it was either Marvel or DC, can't remember which, they sued the makers of the MMO City of Heroes/Villains, because players would make their characters like real comic characters e.g. Spiderman. City of Heroes lost, and players were forbidden to make actual comic characters to play with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chargone (profile), 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re: Case law
  it gets worse. if i remember how that went down exactly, it was (at least suspected) that it was a marvel employee who made the spiderman character the issue came up over... and marvel itself had been making a big deal in some advertising or something about how you could do just that.
  
  look up the actual event though... i never claim my memory is perfect reguarding these things.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Oct 2010 @ 3:02pm

"and that this could be a very serious issue for people who are just doing something inherently cool without realizing it: "

This is good in the sense that it could help make more people aware of how broken our IP system is and hopefully that can help to correct it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Johnny John Smith, 20 Oct 2010 @ 2:50pm

Anonymous
Good Thing In the internet there exist anonymity so therefore go fuck yourself fucking pig lawyers and by the way I will build a replica of Hogwarts, Coruscant, the little bar on tatooine and upload the worlds whats going to happen nothing especially when i use a name like Johnny John Smith and insert my email as gogo@hotmail.com which are in no way related to me HAHAHA Long live the internet and anonymity!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
kymaster, 21 Oct 2010 @ 6:18am

Are you kidding me?
That's freaking retarded!

Next thing will be that we cant even draw things on paper before a lawyer is sitting on top of you with a stack of papers.

Wouldn't the world be better without all these stupid companies that can't let "tiny" things slide???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me, 17 Jan 2011 @ 2:12am

Haw! Yea Right
People still going on about 'anything being copyright infringement' aren't aware to recent changes to the law. Trying to sue over something like this would get the case instantly thrown out of course. The official law is that it isn't copyright infringement if no profit is made of it.

Final - end of sentence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]