This is a new angle on story stealing

[lovecraft68]

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable response.
Your comment about him seeming young probably plays into it. For most of my generation everything is digital, so sharing, copying, using things isn't seen as a big deal. Copyright is kind of an abstract concept to them, and if they aren't actually creating anything they don't much care. Even if they are, they are more interested in likes and clicks than copyright.

Not saying that excuses him, just makes it more understandable.

Interesting point that I hadn't considered. I see young sometimes in the sense of 'Just doesn't know better" in some things, but you're right, a generation raised with non physical media and everything on the net being shared around with no concern to ownership of intellectual property certainly is a factor.

 

[Britva415]

he said he took my non response as being a green light

That's proof of bad faith.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Interesting point that I hadn't considered. I see young sometimes in the sense of 'Just doesn't know better" in some things, but you're right, a generation raised with non physical media and everything on the net being shared around with no concern to ownership of intellectual property certainly is a factor.

That's proof of bad faith.

Not necessarily, lots of young people would assume it means you don't care. It's just stuff on the internet as far as they are concerned, and the internet is free.

 

[Britva415]

lots of young people would assume it means you don't care

To me, that's still bad faith. Ignorance is no excuse. This attitude is wrong and indecent, fullstop, whether they know it or not.

Why ask for consent if they're going to do it anyway if they don't get a Yes? It's bad faith.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

To me, that's still bad faith. Ignorance is no excuse. This attitude is wrong and indecent, fullstop, whether they know it or not.

Why ask for consent if they're going to do it anyway if they don't get a Yes? It's bad faith.

So, not seeing the world exactly as you do is "bad faith"?
One cannot be both ignorant and act in bad faith. Bad faith requires intent.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

So, not seeing the world exactly as you do is "bad faith"?
One cannot be both ignorant and act in bad faith. Bad faith requires intent.

Legally speaking, it's very bad faith.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Legally speaking, it's very bad faith.

Legally speaking, no it isn't.

Cornell University

bad faith
Bad faith refers to dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or a fraudulent intent. It is often related to a breach of the obligation inherent in all contracts to deal with the other parties in good faith and with fair dealing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Legally speaking, no it isn't.

Cornell University

bad faith
Bad faith refers to dishonesty or fraud in a transaction. Depending on the exact setting, bad faith may mean a dishonest belief or purpose, untrustworthy performance of duties, neglect of fair dealing standards, or a fraudulent intent. It is often related to a breach of the obligation inherent in all contracts to deal with the other parties in good faith and with fair dealing.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/bad_faith

Exactly. Bad faith, all the way.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Exactly. Bad faith, all the way.

Whatever.

 

[Britva415]

Bad faith requires intent.

No, just the absence of good faith.

 

[lovecraft68]

Whatever.

I'd use the term unethical.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

@Kelliezgirl is right. Both good and bad faith are things of intent. If someone does something in good faith, with honest and positive intentions, but it turns sour because of ignorance and other factors, the other side might interpret the result as an act done in bad faith. Which one is it, once you get to see both sides? The actions were wrong, but they were done in good faith.

 

[Cacatua_Galerita]

Interesting point that I hadn't considered. I see young sometimes in the sense of 'Just doesn't know better" in some things, but you're right, a generation raised with non physical media and everything on the net being shared around with no concern to ownership of intellectual property certainly is a factor.

Differing respect for Intellectual Property laws is also geographic, not just demographic.

IP laws in the US strongly favor corporate entities. US corporations, being a major holder of IP, always lobby to strengthen protection, and to project those laws onto other countries whenever a Free Trade Agreement is being negotiated.

China abandoned much of their IP legislation in 1949, when the PRC adopted the Soviet Union’s ideals, which regarded ideas and knowledge as belonging to the people. IP laws have since been thrust upon them in return for access to world markets and to attract foreign investment.

Chinese engineers still tend to ignore IP. For example, Chinese electronics engineers will share their product’s circuit diagrams freely on dedicated websites. Contributors will suggest improvements, adopt ideas, or outright copy these designs for their own product. It’s just how they propagate ideas over there. Component producers will upload their own circuit diagrams, incorporating their product, as a way of advertising them. It’s like Open Source software – anyone can copy and contribute. It's entirely normal.

In comparison, US companies have succeed in copyrighting things as flippant as finger gestures on touch screens, then use the legal system to beat down competitors with a superior weight of lawyers.

Both extremes are excessive. The West’s protectionism may be more palatable than outright theft. But I’d argue that the US model us equally broken. (E.g. Big Pharmaceuticals using IP protections to extort obscene profits from health funds.)

In this particular case, both ethically and legally, lovecraft68 should have been asked before his story was ‘adapted.’ However, I doubt he can afford to engage a lawyer to protect his work. IP laws are really only there for corporations to use, not creators.

 

[Britva415]

The actions were wrong, but they were done in good faith.

First, I don't see how you can say that, good faith was absent here. In my opinion.

And second, there is no absolute objective standard of good vs. bad faith. A person can themselves believe their intentions are good, and justify heinous actions based on that. That isn't good intentions and good faith, as far as the victims or outside observers are concerned.

So if I'm called unobjective, fine, I concede that all day long, but I won't agree that there is actively "good faith" behind the behavior we've been talking about here.

Neutral faith, at best. That's a thing I believe in, and nobody has mentioned. I'm willing to walk back my "bad faith" label in this specific instance on the basis of the perpetrator's ignorance and differing social conditioning, but, I'm not willing to respect their intentions to proceed without affirmative permission. It's wrong and isn't a good intention, period.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

First, I don't see how you can say that, good faith was absent here. In my opinion.

And second, there is no absolute objective standard of good vs. bad faith. A person can themselves believe their intentions are good, and justify heinous actions based on that. That isn't good intentions and good faith, as far as the victims or outside observers are concerned.

So if I'm called unobjective, fine, I concede that all day long, but I won't agree that there is actively "good faith" behind the behavior we've been talking about here.

Neutral faith, at best. That's a thing I believe in, and nobody has mentioned. I'm willing to walk back my "bad faith" label in this specific instance on the basis of the perpetrator's ignorance and differing social conditioning, but, I'm not willing to respect their intentions to proceed without affirmative permission. It's wrong and isn't a good intention, period.

He acted in good faith when he asked permission.
He was in error when he decided to go forward despite not getting an answer.
Bad faith means an intent to deceive, had he been acting in bad faith he wouldn't have asked in the first place.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Just for the record, I was talking in general, not about this particular case.

 

[Britva415]

So, we agree there are more than one part to this and they don't all necessarily match on the "faith and intentions" scale?

Sorry, but the reasonably good faith of one act doesn't fix the rest of it.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

So, we agree there are more than one part to this and they don't all necessarily match on the "faith and intentions" scale?

Sorry, but the reasonably good faith of one act doesn't fix the rest of it.

No one is saying it does, and no one is saying what he did was OK.

 

[Britva415]

I mean, plus, I don't know how it can be regarded as "not deceptive."

If that's where we're different, I guess that's where we're different.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

He said that he emailed lc, but lc can't find it anywhere in his folders. There's a distinct possibility that this fellow is lying to cover his tracks. Maybe he did email, maybe not, but either way, no reply to an email is not even close to 'expressed written consent'.

This is inexcusable business behavior, artistically reprehensible, and yes it is totally bad faith.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

He said that he emailed lc, but lc can't find it anywhere in his folders. There's a distinct possibility that this fellow is lying to cover his tracks. Maybe he did email, maybe not, but either way, no reply to an email is not even close to 'expressed written consent'.

This is inexcusable business behavior, artistically reprehensible, and yes it is totally bad faith.

You really don't understand what bad faith means, but thank you for trying.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I mean, plus, I don't know how it can be regarded as "not deceptive."

If that's where we're different, I guess that's where we're different.

What was "deceptive" about it? Whom did he deceive?

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

Received an e-mail from someone on Literotica to inform me that a online "game developer" is using my story Spellbound as the premise of one of his games, Other than character name changes its word for word all the way through. They have a Patreon so they are making some money on this in some way, which is different than the usual, someone lifting a story and putting it on another free site and crediting me-or whoever they do it to.

I could find no way to contact them on one of the free sites they demo the game on, so had to pay $3 to join their patreon to message them that I either want it down, or they credit me and work out a way that I get something on what they're making.

At least for me, this is a new one.

Hi,

I did some digging about on Patreon's T&Cs page and found their copyright info page. You can also file a copyright infringement notice directly through Patreon here.

Or you can email them at: copyright@patreon.com

Hope this helps!

Kasumi

 

[TheLobster]

You really don't understand what bad faith means, but thank you for trying.

I gotta say, it's quite ironic to deliberately and obtusely use the legal definition of bad faith (that does include the neglect part which applies in this case) when it's clear everyone is talking about the colloquial meaning of the phrase.

You might even say there is a name for this kind of behavior...

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I gotta say, it's quite ironic to deliberately and obtusely use the legal definition of bad faith (that does include the neglect part which applies in this case) when it's clear everyone is talking about the colloquial meaning of the phrase.

You might even say there is a name for this kind of behavior...

Can you provide the colloquial definition. Apparently people think it means, "any behavior I don't approve of." Perhaps you have a clearer definition.

Or are you just trying to troll?