Heroes of Newerth

ArcheKleine · 11-30-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Please do not try to put words in my mouth or imply that my post was in anyway malicious; or try give the Dota community the impression that my opinion represents the opinion of the HoN players, in an attempt to lower the image of HoN players in general (even though the attempt is doomed to fail). It will only lower your image.

I do mind and object as I have stated above. Please change your signature, thank you

Oh no worries I am just quoting you after all it's not something obtrusive.

Now let's come to reality:

What you call "put words in mouth" is not malicious. You do not own the words you have typed, you do not own "your quotes", you have no rights to claim that someone is twisting your words from something that you do not own.

Copyright law does not protect ideas, but only the expression of ideas. Furthermore Wolfsong does not own any copyright in the expression of his ideas, hence you do not have any rights to argue that I am twisting your words.

Wolfsong · 11-30-2009, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcheKleine

Oh no worries I am just quoting you after all it's not something obtrusive.

Now let's come to reality:

What you call "put words in mouth" is not malicious. You do not own the words you have typed, you do not own "your quotes", you have no rights to claim that someone is twisting your words from something that you do not own.

Copyright law does not protect ideas, but only the expression of ideas. Furthermore Wolfsong does not own any copyright in the expression of his ideas, hence you do not have any rights to argue that I am twisting your words.

Sigh...

I am sorry but you have failed to understand what I wrote, and what you have wrote yourself in the above post.

Copyright does not protect ideas, but only expressions of ideas. A post, a written article or a drawing are expressions of ideas.

I am not arguing that you are twisting my words, in fact what you have quoted in your signature is the law, the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. All I have done is to ask you to quote the whole truth, but you are rejecting it by some failed attempt to apply what I said in your favour.

What do you say Justin? If this forum has some law that is foreign to the law of every country, please let me know

Sejr · 11-30-2009, 09:51 AM

Potm not an expression of an idea - just an idea?
Oh wait

ArcheKleine · 11-30-2009, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Sigh...

I am sorry but you have failed to understand what I wrote, and what you have wrote yourself in the above post.

Copyright does not protect ideas, but only expressions of ideas. A post, a written article or a drawing are expressions of ideas.

I am not arguing that you are twisting my words, in fact what you have quoted in your signature is the law, the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. All I have done is to ask you to quote the whole truth, but you are rejecting it by some failed attempt to apply what I said in your favour.

What do you say Justin? If this forum has some law that is foreign to the law of every country, please let me know

Why don't you tell me where in this argument I have broken forum rules. Don't back out now kid. We're having an argument. If you have obviously stated something wrong and it is being used against you in this argument, then you are to blame.

d_so · 11-30-2009, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Sigh...

I am sorry but you have failed to understand what I wrote, and what you have wrote yourself in the above post.

Copyright does not protect ideas, but only expressions of ideas. A post, a written article or a drawing are expressions of ideas.

I am not arguing that you are twisting my words, in fact what you have quoted in your signature is the law, the truth and nothing but the truth, but not the whole truth. All I have done is to ask you to quote the whole truth, but you are rejecting it by some failed attempt to apply what I said in your favour.

What do you say Justin? If this forum has some law that is foreign to the law of every country, please let me know

by your line of reasoning any reporter who shortens an interview is violating copyright law.

Wolfsong · 11-30-2009, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sejr

Potm not an expression of an idea - just an idea?
Oh wait

Potm is an expression of an idea, but the problem is that no one owns potm except Blizzard.

What I have said in my relevant post was:

"Copyright law does not protect ideas, but only the expression of ideas. Furthermore Ice Frog does not own any copyright in Dota and hence any copyright in the expression of your ideas. Hence unfortunately you do not either.
"

What the contributor was claiming was that S2 stole his "ideas". I was merely pointing out that copyright does not protect ideas.

By "furthermore" i mean in addition to the above point, even though Dota and Dota heroes are expressions of ideas, unfortunately Ice Frog does not own it and nor does any contributor.

Wolfsong · 11-30-2009, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArcheKleine

Why don't you tell me where in this argument I have broken forum rules. Don't back out now kid. We're having an argument. If you have obviously stated something wrong and it is being used against you in this argument, then you are to blame.

Kleine I really fail to understand you. When you argue you tend to drift away from the real points that I have made, and say something like

"If you have obviously stated something wrong and it is being used against you in this argument, then you are to blame"

What have I stated wrong? What has been used against me?

I have clearly pointed out that a post is an expression of idea and I do have rights to claim that you misquoted it (not that you did, which I have pointed out).

I have not claimed that you have breached the forum rules. All I have said is that I object to you using my expression of idea in your signature, unless you quote the whole of the expression or that you provide a link to my post only.
As the author of the post, I have that right.

To d_so:

If a reporter manipulates what the interviewee tells him when the reporter writes the article, then the interviewee is properly protected by the law of defamation or tort or in some jurisdiction can apply to the relevant authority for a finding of professional misconduct/unsatisfactory professional conduct against the reporter, the copyright law does not apply in this case.

A reporter is entitled to choose what content goes into his written report of the interview, as long as he does not misquote the interviewee.

Hope that helps.

ArcheKleine · 11-30-2009, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Potm is an expression of an idea, but the problem is that no one owns potm except Blizzard.

What the contributor was claiming was that S2 stole his "ideas". I was merely pointing out that copyright does not protect ideas.

By "furthermore" i mean in addition to the above point, even though Dota and Dota heroes are expressions of ideas, unfortunately Ice Frog does not own it and nor does any contributor.

1. PotM is an expression of an idea? You have just entered an area where you know nothing of what you are discussing now. The Gallardo is not an expression of an idea, it IS the manifestation of an idea, hence it is the idea itself in a physical manifestation. (If you don't know what the gallardo is, I have to say I would be further disappointed)

2. You have no idea how the EULA works. Blizzard does not own PotM. Once again another sign of ignorance.

3. What the plaintiff was claiming was that I misrepresent his "ideas". I was merely pointing out that copyright does not protect ideas.

By "furthermore" i mean in addition to the above point, even though forumers and their typed out words are expressions of ideas, unfortunately Wolfsong nor any other forumer owns it.

We can do this all day and all night if you want.

Shadowplay · 11-30-2009, 10:14 AM

So.. I was wondering. If the expression of an idea is protected by copyright then how is this not a violation of copy right?

Quote:

Potm, a skill that deals damage to nearby enemies and hits a single enemy once more.
Valkyrie, a skill that deals damage to nearby enemies and hits a single enemy once more.

Potm, A skill that fires off an arrow in a straight line for a very far distance and stuns the target depending on the range.
Valkyrie, A skill that fires off an arrow in a straight line for a very far distance and stuns the target depending on the range.

Potm, A skill that makes her leap a distance directly farward and then gives her a buff to movementspeed and attackspeed
Valkyrie, A skill that makes her leap a distance directly farward and then gives her a buff to movementspeed and attackspeed

Potm, A skill that makes all her allies invisible for a short time
Valkyrie, A skill that makes all her allies invisible for a short time

We could also take a different look at it.

Quote:

Potms skill set allows her to damage nearby enemies with an added extra target, she can fire off a projectile that flies in free air and stuns if she hits anything, a skill that makes her leap farward granting bonuses to move and attackspeed and lastly a skill that makes all her allies invisible.
Valkyries skill set allows her to damage nearby enemies with an added extra target, she can fire off a projectile that flies in free air and stuns if she hits anything, a skill that makes her leap farward granting bonuses to move and attackspeed and lastly a skill that makes all her allies invisible.

So, now besides the graphics, every single piece of concept, mechanic and synergy was stolen here. There is a copyright law that says that you are allowed to copy up to 20% of a persons material if you add credits and refference to the source material but I do believe that this exceeds 20% quite substantially.

And yes I know that the dual dmg was removed from potm but it is still in an older version and it is still covered.

Sources:
Valkyrie - Heroes of Newerth Strategy and guides - Heroes-Newerth.com (lol srsly wtf, even the numbers are identical!)
Priestess of the Moon - DotA Hero Details
My neighbour who is an attorney at international intellectual property law.

Wolfsong · 11-30-2009, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowplay

So.. I was wondering. If the expression of an idea is protected by copyright then how is this not a violation of copy right?

We could also take a different look at it.

So, now besides the graphics, every single piece of concept, mechanic and synergy was stolen here. There is a copyright law that says that you are allowed to copy up to 20% of a persons material if you add credits and refference to the source material but I do believe that this exceeds 20% quite substantially.

And yes I know that the dual dmg was removed from potm but it is still in an older version and it is still covered.

Sources:
Valkyrie - Heroes of Newerth Strategy and guides - Heroes-Newerth.com (lol srsly wtf, even the numbers are identical!)
Priestess of the Moon - DotA Hero Details
My neighbour who is an attorney at international intellectual property law.

Thanks for the interest, even though we are going off-topic.

Let me quote the australian copyright law (which is similary to the law in other common law jurisdiction) summary for example:

What does copyright protect?

"Copyright does not protect ideas or information as such but only the original expression of ideas or information. Copyright differs fundamentally from patents, trade marks and designs in this way. For example, unlike the grant of a patent, which gives monopoly rights over the idea of an invention, the creation of a copyright work does not grant a monopoly over the ideas or information expressed in the work. Rather, rights are granted to the copyright owner in respect of the reproduction (and certain other uses) of that particular expression of ideas or information which has been fixed in a material form."

"Copyright, therefore, does not prevent the use of the same idea or information. If two people independently create similar works based on the same idea or information, and neither is a copy of the other work, there is no issue of copyright infringement. For example, two artists may set up canvasses in the same spot and paint the same waterfall. Both artists would have copyright in their works and there would be no infringement of copyright providing the artists do not copy each other's painting."

I hope that helps.

Minotaar · 11-30-2009, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

I would like to also invite you to HoN beta, for the sake of you seeing how your ideas were implemented and liked; and maybe you can then criticise S2 based on more informed opinions. The more informed criticisms, the better a game will be.

Were you born stupid? Did you not even read my post? Why would I help someone who stole my ideas, sells them for money, and claims them as his own? Do you have brain damage?

HoN is unoriginal, derivative crap. Like the fucking Go Bots compared to Transformers. Like Vanilla Ice compared to Wu Tang Clan. Hon is skinny white boys trying badly to be cool.

And you are defending them.

It's one thing to be a stinky piece of shit. It is wholly worse to stand next to it and insist it doesn't smell.

Wolfsong · 11-30-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minotaar

Were you born stupid? Did you not even read my post? Why would I help someone who stole my ideas, sells them for money, and claims them as his own? Do you have brain damage?

HoN is unoriginal, derivative crap. Like the fucking Go Bots compared to Transformers. Like Vanilla Ice compared to Wu Tang Clan. Hon is skinny white boys trying badly to be cool.

And you are defending them.

It's one thing to be a stinky piece of shit. It is wholly worse to stand next to it and insist it doesn't smell.

As I have said, they have not stolen your ideas, nor have they claimed that their dota ports were based on ideas of their own. They have always acknowledged that the ported heroes were inspired by the Dota counter parts.

I thank you for rejecting my invitation anyway. I ignore you foul language just because you are a contributor.

Anubyse · 11-30-2009, 10:28 AM

@minotaar

EPIC WIN! im trying to brigthen up this gloomy conversation!

Shadowplay · 11-30-2009, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Thanks for the interest, even though we are going off-topic.

Let me quote the australian copyright law (which is similary to the law in other common law jurisdiction) summary for example:

What does copyright protect?

"Copyright does not protect ideas or information as such but only the original expression of ideas or information. Copyright differs fundamentally from patents, trade marks and designs in this way. For example, unlike the grant of a patent, which gives monopoly rights over the idea of an invention, the creation of a copyright work does not grant a monopoly over the ideas or information expressed in the work. Rather, rights are granted to the copyright owner in respect of the reproduction (and certain other uses) of that particular expression of ideas or information which has been fixed in a material form."

"Copyright, therefore, does not prevent the use of the same idea or information. If two people independently create similar works based on the same idea or information, and neither is a copy of the other work, there is no issue of copyright infringement. For example, two artists may set up canvasses in the same spot and paint the same waterfall. Both artists would have copyright in their works and there would be no infringement of copyright providing the artists do not copy each other's painting."

I hope that helps.

It most certainly does. Thank you for clearing it up for me.

It is good to see that you admit that the fact that S2 copies from Dota is a violation of the copyright. You see, in your lovely example we have 2 painters who, if they painted a picture of the same waterfall, would have no problem. But if Painter 1 (lets call him IceFrog) were to paint a picture of said waterfall and painter 2 (lets call him S2) were to copy parts of Painter 1's picture then Painter 2 would actually be breaking the law.

So... Since there quite obviously have been massive copies in the form of numbers at the very least, S2 is actually breaking that law. Interesting.

Also, you forgot to answer ArcheKleine

ArcheKleine · 11-30-2009, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

Thanks for the interest, even though we are going off-topic.

Let me quote the australian copyright law (which is similary to the law in other common law jurisdiction) summary for example:

What does copyright protect?

"Copyright does not protect ideas or information as such but only the original expression of ideas or information. Copyright differs fundamentally from patents, trade marks and designs in this way. For example, unlike the grant of a patent, which gives monopoly rights over the idea of an invention, the creation of a copyright work does not grant a monopoly over the ideas or information expressed in the work. Rather, rights are granted to the copyright owner in respect of the reproduction (and certain other uses) of that particular expression of ideas or information which has been fixed in a material form."

"Copyright, therefore, does not prevent the use of the same idea or information. If two people independently create similar works based on the same idea or information, and neither is a copy of the other work, there is no issue of copyright infringement. For example, two artists may set up canvasses in the same spot and paint the same waterfall. Both artists would have copyright in their works and there would be no infringement of copyright providing the artists do not copy each other's painting."

I hope that helps.

Thanks for the quote on copyright, even though we are going off-topic.

Let me quote the australian copyright law (which is similary to the law in other common law jurisdiction) summary for example:

What does copyright protect?

"Copyright does not protect ideas or information as such but only the original expression of ideas or information. Copyright differs fundamentally from patents, trade marks and designs in this way. For example, unlike the grant of a patent, which gives monopoly rights over the idea of an invention, the creation of a copyright work does not grant a monopoly over the ideas or information expressed in the work. Rather, rights are granted to the copyright owner in respect of the reproduction (and certain other uses) of that particular expression of ideas or information which has been fixed in a material form."

"Copyright, therefore, does not prevent the use of the same idea or information. If two people independently create similar works based on the same idea or information, and neither is a copy of the other work, there is no issue of copyright infringement. For example, two artists may set up canvasses in the same spot and paint the same waterfall. Both artists would have copyright in their works and there would be no infringement of copyright providing the artists do not copy each other's painting."

Here's the real kicker. You see that underlined part? Here let me help you:
If two people INDEPENDENTLY create similar works based on the same idea or information, and neither is a copy of the other work, there is no issue of copyright infringement.

I hope that helps.

Wolfsong · 11-30-2009, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowplay

It most certainly does. Thank you for clearing it up for me.

It is good to see that you admit that the fact that S2 copies from Dota is a violation of the copyright. You see, in your lovely example we have 2 painters who, if they painted a picture of the same waterfall, would have no problem. But if Painter 1 (lets call him IceFrog) were to paint a picture of said waterfall and painter 2 (lets call him S2) were to copy parts of Painter 1's picture then Painter 2 would actually be breaking the law.

So... Since there quite obviously have been massive copies in the form of numbers at the very least, S2 is actually breaking that law. Interesting.

Also, you forgot to answer ArcheKleine

.......

I apologise, I have forgotten how lay people cannot interpret the law correctly.

S2 has not copied any expressions of ideas, they have used the ideas behind Dota heroes and expressed them in their own way, while acknowledging that the ideas were from Dota.

Take the above facts to any lawyer near you, they will advise you that there's no copyright violation whatsoever

Thanks for the good discussion.

ArcheKleine · 11-30-2009, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolfsong

.......

I apologise, I have forgotten how lay people cannot interpret the law correctly.

S2 has not copied any expressions of ideas, they have used the ideas behind Dota heroes and expressed them in their own way, while acknowledging that the ideas were from Dota.

Take the above facts to any lawyer near you, they will advise you that there's no copyright violation whatsoever

Thanks for the good discussion.

I apologize, I have forgotten how Wolfsong cannot interpret anything correctly.

I have not copied any expression of ideas, I have used the ideas behind his posts and expressed them in their own way, while acknowledging that the ideas were from Wolfsong.

Take the above facts to any lawyer near you, they will advise you that there's no copyright violation whatsoever

Thanks for the good discussion.

Sejr · 11-30-2009, 10:39 AM

that still dont mean we dont hate you. Which we do.

also this

Quote: