Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ATMLVE

Ship Copyright Infringement?

Recommended Posts

Lets say I make an awesome ship and I sell it on the market for a certain amount. What's to stop some guy from buying it, saving it as his own blueprint, then selling it and making tons more currency because he is able to get more attention drawn towards it? Also, whats to stop someone from just saving a ship or construct I'm working on as a blueprint?

 

I was thinking along the lines of constructs being owner specific, even if created from blueprints; so the first person to place a block for a construct permanently owns it and all copies of it. The only problem with that is, what if I take a piece of crap ship and make it 100 times better? Then I can't make a blueprint from it.

 

I was also thinking there could be an "ownership block", where whoever places it on a construct owns that construct permanently. But then that could simply be broken and replaced by someone else to call the ship theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reverse engineering and the ability to throw together a better version of the same ship should be allowed. I disagree with a copyright system. Whilst yes, it's possible to copy anothers ships, why not take it personally and really crush the competition? This is about how you work the market :P 

Though, you do bring up a good point. I guess the way they stop BPs being completed by other players would be whoever owns the Starting point owns the entire setup, therefore limiting those who can copy etc. 
Maybe they'll just make it so that we can only buy the ships and not make blueprints of them.
But that doesn't stop things. 

I can now understand where you are coming from with my ramblings. 
The starting block is what you use to define who can edit your construct and etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am thinking something along the lines of "If it's made from a blueprint, you can't get a blueprint from it, even you change it". Since every object needs a core block, it could be bound to that instead of the blueprint/construct as a whole. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i read somewhere that ships made out blueprints, can't be modified by removing blocks, you can only place more on them. So that reverse engineering isn't that easy, since you can't see inside walls or small spaces, if the design is compact enough. And yes, if you're the ship owner, you have options to decide who can place/remove blocks (multiplayer building), copy it, make blueprints, and more. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think i read somewhere that ships made out blueprints, can't be modified by removing blocks, you can only place more on them. So that reverse engineering isn't that easy, since you can't see inside walls or small spaces, if the design is compact enough.

 

I think it would be smart if you couldn't reverse engineer blueprints.  This would open the need for companies to commit corporate espionage and infiltrate other companies, get an original model, and steal it to reverse engineer and turn a profit.  I think it would just add another level of game play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"

Good day, ATMLVE. I understand your concern completely and I'm glad to tell you that it's already been taken care of. 

 

Have you read the Rights, Duties and Management System (RDMS) developer's blog post? If not, I advise you head over here. Cybrex's FAQ summary here, provides a basic summary. 

 

With efficient security measures, it will be practically impossible for the scenario you've described to occur. I could sell you my ships, but withhold the authorisation for you to edit it or make blueprints out of it. 

 

For those who create and produce, they are free to withhold access to the ship from everyone else, or keep the access (on different level of access, of course) strictly within their organisation or limited to people they trust. 

 

The RDMS opens up a whole world of possibilities and you're free to experiment and discover. 

 

I hope you have a wonderful day.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but lol aetherios, have read the topic? you are completly out

It seems to me like he answered the question. Is there something else you're confused or concerned about that wasn't addressed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do have to disagree somewhat with this  yea sure you could have copyrighting but i disagree that it should be a scripted thing and if it is, It should have a cost.

 

The cost should be relative to it's size and number of resources needed to craft that ship. If you can afford to build a ship that can only be compared with Chuck Norris. You can probably afford to copyright it.

 

But like anything people with decent skills in building and industrialism should have a way of reverse engineering that copyright as well. Prime example Intel reverse engineered Hyper Threading from a project AMD was working on which allowed them to pull so far ahead in the processor market.

 

It's a single shard universe with multiple planets what about stealing a blueprint and taking it to another planet which may well be a different market (dev dependent of course) should the copyright still exist there I think not, especially as copyright law is somewhat country dependent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copyright eh?

 

With props to the OP (who poses the question - and it is a good one, so no flame intended, I'm just a sarky bastard...)

 

While Aetherios is indeed correct (show off :P ), might I also posit the following:

 

"If someone buy's your ship and then uses that to make their own version, or steals your blueprint and does the same, and does either in such a way that is still within the ToS (no RL hacking for instance) and the RDMS, well yes - you probably are completely within your rights to prosecute that person for breach of copyright and or IP infringement.

 

Now - just point me towards your copyright lawyer, and the local Alioth court house and lawyer, and the underpinning legal framework you're working under and we'll get this sorted.

 

Oh - you mean that in this lawless godforsaken world, that guy I just shot in the face for coughing near me was your lawyer? Bummer..."

 

OK - serious face on again - stuff like copyright, ownership etc, IN GAME (and not as determined by a game mechanic designed to simply manage the assets of the game) is all Role Play.

 

Out of game / game mechanic  wise - while the RDMS will manage things as Aetherios states - that in itself creates the awesome counter-game mechanic (or playing opportunity) to develop a black market / knock off industry.

 

I personally think that if made right it would really add richness to the game. (Someone remind me to put these in the idea box):

 

a) You could have "uniques" - original creations by real players - the thing which serves as the template for the blueprints (which could then be mass produced). While mass produced versions may actually be the same or even superior in stats, the fact that a "unique" is by definition unique, creates essentially both a market for Art etc, but also drives a realistic system of people being recognised as master craftsmen.

 

"This baby? It's an ATMLVE original, not one of them cheap [insert ship company org name here] knock-offs. Gonna cost you triple."

 

B) You could have "masterpieces" - items which, in the process of original creation, are just "better" than anything even the AI's can reproduce. Again, adding to the value chain of craftsmen vs mass producing from blueprints.

 

c) Custom pieces and once off's - items (tagged in the RDMS as "no-blueprint" or the like) - unique pieces of art or equipment which can't be reproduced (or shouldn't be). This would include art, possibly food (nothing tastes quite right when made with a machine?), custom weapons and ships.

 

d) Knock-offs The game could have a reverse-engineering skill, allowing you to deconstruct an item and make a blue print out of it. Items thus produced would be tagged as "knock-offs" and will ALWAYS be inferior in quality and specifications. Of course - one could then improve upon a knock-off blueprint to make something even better than the original idea.

 

e) An inventor tag. This one I think is important. Rather than "locking" a design/item to the original creator (which is kinda a game mechanic for "intellectual property" which I'm still not sure I agree with in terms of it could limit RPG gameplay in that sense), make sure that EVERY item/ship/weapon/thing that gets invented/made has an Inventor tag. It becomes a part of our collective history - when we look back in two years and wonder where some ubiquitous item or design which just "works" comes from, that 50 organisations produce as a staple, we always know who to give the real kudos to.

 

Anyway - just some drive by thoughts per usual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I would say is that it's very important that people not be able to steal others blueprints. So long as the Devs know that and take effective measures to ensure that the blueprint system isn't compromised, everything will be fine. 

 

I would suggest that the editing and re-blueprinting of ships from bought blueprints be un-allowed, and that the ship creation system be complex enough that it require some level of skill to re-make ships with the same abilities and stats. But it seems like the devs already know that and have the situation under control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about

 

All I would say is that it's very important that people not be able to steal others blueprints. So long as the Devs know that and take effective measures to ensure that the blueprint system isn't compromised, everything will be fine. 

 

I would suggest that the editing and re-blueprinting of ships from bought blueprints be un-allowed, and that the ship creation system be complex enough that it require some level of skill to re-make ships with the same abilities and stats. But it seems like the devs already know that and have the situation under control.

 

I don't know about "people not be able to". Certainly it should be really freakin hard to do, must be done "in game" (i.e - you must physically break into the secret lab and stealz the blueprint!) and be also quite hard to then dispose of to buyers etc (i.e. you shouldn't be able to just throw "illegal" items like stolen goods into the marketplace).

 

To me - there is just so much rich game play to be had with something like a blueprint in play! I mean - you wouldn't even have Star Wars Rogue One (let alone the original SW:IV Death Star mission) without stolen plans ;) Blueprints are a plot device to be reckoned with!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about

 

 

I don't know about "people not be able to". Certainly it should be really freakin hard to do, must be done "in game" (i.e - you must physically break into the secret lab and stealz the blueprint!) and be also quite hard to then dispose of to buyers etc (i.e. you shouldn't be able to just throw "illegal" items like stolen goods into the marketplace).

 

To me - there is just so much rich game play to be had with something like a blueprint in play! I mean - you wouldn't even have Star Wars Rogue One (let alone the original SW:IV Death Star mission) without stolen plans ;) Blueprints are a plot device to be reckoned with!

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I didn't want theft to be a part of the game, because it absolutely should be. What I was trying to say was that it shouldn't be as easy as "buy a ship, change 1 block, re-sell at a lower price than the originator", because that would kill the building gameplay in 2 seconds, not to mention flooding the market with a thousand ship types that are nearly identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Vorengards point I have to agree but let's take this point....

Builder/Industrialist of say level 3 stats across the board produces a ship.

 

Builder/Industrialist of level 3 stats across the board buys the blueprint, He has the materials to reproduce the ship he has the skills in game why would he not be able to produce a ship of equal quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think there is a very simple way to balance it:

you can make copies of the blueprint of your ship only if it doesn't match at 75% with the original one (assuming you bought it). that is quite simple to do as you just have to overlay the voxel grid and compare. when you create a blueprint, you cannot finish creation as long as it is 75%+ similar to another design, or be left without being able to make the blueprint. Two ships distincltly made will almost never have more than 10-20% similarity when overlaying grids (unless they use a ton of armor at the same places but that should be unwelcomed)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On Vorengards point I have to agree but let's take this point....

Builder/Industrialist of say level 3 stats across the board produces a ship.

 

Builder/Industrialist of level 3 stats across the board buys the blueprint, He has the materials to reproduce the ship he has the skills in game why would he not be able to produce a ship of equal quality.

"

Good day to you, Blacksythe. The second industrialist that you mentioned has no restriction that stops him from building a ship of equal quality. The Right, Duties and Management System (RDMS) simply stops him from directly copying the former's design. Quality isn't limited to one form, quality can exist in whatever design you favour. However, taking and profiting from someone else's labour  and time without permission or payment is outright theft and evil. That's what the RDMS hopes to curtail.

"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i misrepresented my statement there... It should read why should he not be able to copy it. Consequences should be in game player represented and not scripted.

 

Well think about it. Say I make a cool ship design, and it's this really big, intricate, cool looking ship that took me hours to get just right. So I put the blueprint up on the market and sell it for, say, $1,000 (just to pick a nice even number). Without some sort of rights protection, what's to stop some other guy from just buying and building a single copy of my ship, changing 1 block, and then saving it and selling that blueprint as his own design for $900? Now he's just stolen my idea and is selling a nearly identical copy for far less money, even though he's done no work and invested only the original price. Now everyone will buy from him and not me because his is the same, only cheaper.

 

Can you see how annoying that would be for builders and designers everywhere? If it were me, I'd make it so you can't edit ships you made off of someone else's blueprints. Or maybe you can edit them, but only in a limited way, such as certain blocks or add-ons. Sure, that might not be "realistic", but it stops the game from favoring the rich players with enough free time to sit and manipulate market all day long.

 

I'd also like to see a crafting system with a high enough level of complexity that it's hard to simply build your own version of a blueprint you saw on market. Especially for larger ships. Obviously with small 1-man fighters there's only so much variation. But if, for example, if it requires actual skill to build ships with the best stats then being a master ship designer will be an actual thing; which I think would be incredibly cool. "Oh, I only buy ships designed by Player X, his ships have maximized defensive capabilities." Which would be countered by "I prefer Player Y, his designed are all faster and more agile than anything else on the market!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned I dont disagree with what you have said I do think there should be a way of protecting your investments but it should have it's own limitations. Including just a few.

 

"Copyright" on 1 planet or solar system should not necessarily effect another Planet or Solarsystem and doing so should have an additional cost making it very expensive to cover the entire universe meaning building "the best ship" makes it worth protecting and can be sold at a price that represents this cost.

 

Building a great ship may only need to be copyrighted in the best markets.

 

My point is putting to many scripted systems in place without limitations on them means the game also puts restrictions on players that don't want to "play fair" and too few means the market crashes supporting the pay to win model.

 

Thats why i suggest a solar system model that again if someone has the skills can be circumvented but someone with less skills would be left with an inferior model or even a tagged model. Building it outside the copyright zone may mean it wont be tagged but lower skills would mean it is still inferior.

 

Above is just an example my main point is that too many scripted systems puts restrictions on 1 side of gameplay that many players would enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idea: You can't remove blocks from bought ships/ships made from bought blueprints, only add, so that you can repair minor damage to hulls and such. This will also allow fighters to field-modify creations and maybe discover nice new features for existing designs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas:

You design the blueprint for a ship, then you use it to create the ship.
Can't create blueprint from the ship. Can't edit "bought" ships.

 

Can buy, say, a core unit that supplies a blueprint around it, once built, it reverts to a normal core unit (blueprint lost).

This ship, built by you, off someone else's blueprint, can be edited by you, and on-sold (if desired), but you are unable to create a blueprint for this new ship unless you do it from scratch.

 

That way, "normal-quality" ships can be supplied as blueprint core units, that people can build and after that, edit. (must be built EXACTLY to the blueprint before it can be edited). If people go to the effort of reverse engineering, good for them, but not worth it.

Higher-quality ships sold as pre-built, and those ships can't be edited unless you take them back to the creator, and request the changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO this should all be controllable with RDMS:

 

For the constructs themselves:
Right to generate blueprint from construct
Right to add to a construct (voxels, elements, paint)
Right to remove from a construct
If the repairing mechanic is different from add/removing (which I hope it is, since you could repair without being able to add/remove), Right to repair
Right to trade
Right to use/interact

For the blueprints:
Right to switch between reuseable and one time use BP

Right to use manually
Right to use in a factory unit
Right to trade
If BPs are/can be contained in a physical thing, right to overwrite physical thing with another construct BP
If BPs are/can be contained in a physical thing, right to copy to another physical thing with rights identical to first BP
Rights should transfer in a specific way from blueprint to construct built from the blueprint. Either inherited from the original construct, or owner specifies rights at time of blueprinting. Owner would only be able to grant rights which he has.

 

This probably won't be an exhaustive list, but that's the general idea. Every action which can be taken with the BPs or BPing a construct should be associated with a right which is manageable by the RDMS.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love it. Except "Right to Repair". I don't think anyone should be denied the right to fix their ship, for  a number of reasons. Perhaps the most compelling is new players, who could buy  a ship not realizing they aren't being granted repair rights, and then rage-quit because they can't figure out how to fix their ship.

 

That just sounds like an unnecessarily annoying feature. Otherwise, top quality list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love this idea. 
But we need some rules to this; ofc we can't punish a players who just take inspiration, and maybe, to judge this, we can vote for players and create a court to judge these infringement. 
At least we don't need the help of the dev, it can be a player's choice. We just have to compare the blueprints :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...