Forum:Delete book contents?

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > Delete book contents?
Archive
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 8 October 2010 by Cook Me Plox.

About a month or two ago it was decided that dialogue pages should be deleted as the violate fair use. Perhaps it was an oversight, but why are book contents allowed to remain? I see no difference between transcribing NPC dialogue and the contents of books onto the wiki. So should these not be deleted as well?

Just to be clear, I was against the deletion of dialogue pages, and I would be against the deletion of book contents as well. However, I thought it would be a good idea to put this out. Armadyl symbol.png Nightgunner Talk Illuminated Book of Law.png 08:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Question - Where are the book contents? Full Slayer Helmet! Evil1888 Talk A's L Dragon Platebody! 08:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

See Category:Books. Anyway, I'm going to hold off on making a stance on this until I get more information. ʞooɔ 09:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
See [[:Category:Texts and Tomes]] actually, that has everything thats in the books category, and more writings and stuff. bad_fetustalk 10:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Oh, come on, even if it's illegal, Jagex doesn't mind it, or they'd warn us. Stop deleting everything you come across. bad_fetustalk 09:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong oppose - Per Chess. It's only Jagex's ignorance that prevents us from making these topics clear. 222 talk 10:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - If it violates copyright law, then it must be deleted. If you say that Jagex's ignorance is an excuse for us to engage in illegal activity, then we might as well give a free pass to the vandals or allow RSMV images. --LiquidTalk 13:29, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I said that it is Jagex's ignorance that prevents us from making these topics clear. NOT Jagex's ignorance means that they don't care so we can do something illegal. If Jagex crawled out of their self-importance hole, we can get their opinion on this. It's either Jagex doesn't care or they want us to remove it, which then we would be obliged to. 222 talk 06:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
Copyright violation isn't the only reason why we don't allow RSMV images. If it was, I'd go strong support it. Also, Jagex said they don't want us to put RSMV images, which is certainly not the case here. Also, I don't see how giving free pass to vandals is even similar to this. Here, the only problem is copyright violation which doesn't bother us as long as Jagex doesn't care. However, giving free pass to vandals would certainly not help the wiki, and Jagex would care. bad_fetustalk 08:15, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Chess.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.3.47.133 (talk) on 19:17, August 28, 2010 (UTC).

Oppose - Jagex seems to tolerate it and it is a great source of information. Why don't we just ask them what they think? </sarcasm> Ancient talisman.png Oil4 Talk 21:26, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strong support - Those who are opposing should read RuneScape:Requests for deletion/Template:Hasdialogue. We've already reached consensus on this, that it is illegal, regardless of what we might like to think. ʞooɔ 21:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, finally Cook and I are on the same page for once. (no pun intended) --LiquidTalk 21:38, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
=D ʞooɔ 21:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Because we already have a consensus on this issue, it would take a consensus against deleting book contents to save them. If there is no consensus, or if there is a consensus for deleting them, then the book contents are gone. --LiquidTalk 21:41, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

...What? --Iiii I I I 21:42, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Per Oli.

You already !voted above. ajr 00:22, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I personally felt at the time that it was a mistake to delete the dialogue pages on the grounds that they possibly might have violated Fair Use since they provided integral background information on the NPCs whom the dialogue was associated with, and I feel now that deleting the book contents would be another grave mistake against the purpose of the Wiki (which is to be a professional source of information about RuneScape for those seeking to learn all about it). Also, the process of deleting key information about RuneScape because it might remotely violate Fair Use is a slippery slope which I don't want to see the Wiki suffer because of, as the same argument for deleting the book contents could very well be adapted to support the removal of other key articles on the Wiki due to even the slightest possibility that Fair Use might be violated by keeping said articles on the Wiki. Therefore, I am asking the supporters of the removal of all book contents to please reconsider their reasoning behind the removal of said book contents and at least consider a possible compromise that will not set the Wiki on a slippery slope towards more important articles being removed for the slightest fear of violating Fair Use. Thank you for your time. [1] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 18:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Deleting book contents will not harm the purpose of the wiki. We can always replace the contents, copied verbatim, with summaries that are our original content. That way, the articles will detail the contents of the book without violating copyright law. --LiquidTalk 19:41, August 29, 2010 (UTC)
Changed to Support - Ah, I see now what you mean. I was worried that the information itself from the books was going to be deleted, so that's why I originally was opposing this proposal, but now that I understand what's actually being discussed here, I support this proposal totally. Sorry for jumping to the wrong conclusion, folks. Frown [2] N7 Elite (Ready to talk now?) 20:31, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Support - if we deleted the dialogue pages for this reason, then we've got to do the same for book contents... we can't pick and choose when to follow certain rules. If we are going to keep book contents then we might as well have not gotten rid of the dialogues... insaneular 23:41, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Just because we did a mistake somewhere else shouldn't mean that we should also make a mistake here, but we should instead correct the mistake. Don't support just because dialouge pages were deleted if you would prefer to keep these. bad_fetustalk 08:17, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. If we are going to delete any "directly copied texts from runescape" we should also delete names like Plane-freezer Lakhrahnaz and such. This is going too far and i think the dialogue pages should be placed back.(by a bot or something) JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:21, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose- Per Oli.

Someone forgot to sign? Leftiness 23:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Support Deletion - I'll go over the four sections of Fair Use again. If anybody wants to argue that this is Fair Use or that we're allowed to use the images for another reason, I'll discuss it.

Purpose of the use: to inform our readers. Nature of the work: unprotected text. Substantiality of the use: 100% of the text. Effect on Market value: undetermined.

The problem: substantiality. Our purpose of informing our readers is fine, and we even provide some commentary at the top of the pages that I read. However, it's a copy of 100% of the work. Jagex owns the rights to the work, and Fair Use applies to using parts of the work to illustrate a point, provide insight, and so on. We do illustrate points and provide insight, but there's just too much taken. You can't take 100% of it, write a paragraph of commentary, and call it good.

Also, citing the dialogue pages as a reason to support deletion is fair. There was plenty of factual information supporting deletion, and people have posted the same reasons for keeping these: "Jagex hasn't done anything," "They obviously don't care," "It's good information," etc. In regards to those reasons: they have no legal merit. Whether Jagex has done anything, or whether they care, is irrelevant. Also, any preference or consensus is irrelevant in legal matters, Jagex is not obliged to make any decision or tell us their position, and, as I've said many times before, any benefit gained by an illegal act is no benefit at all. Leftiness 23:47, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

On the problem of substantiality, I say that the text of the books (with the obvious exception of their the real-life book) is far less than 100% of the work, which is RuneScape. Jagex doesn't sell access to the books, they sell access to the game which contains the books. --MarkGyver (talk) 20:01, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Instead of the "Jagex doesn't care" argument, I went to RuneScape's site and found Jagex's policy on this matter. In the policy Jagex explicitly allows use of images and newsposts if they are properly referenced. Text from a book is derived from in-game images which are explicitly allowed, so I believe they fall under the same legal status as edited screenshots, which are also equally derivative from in-game images. I am not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure this content is legal, even if Jagex's permission is not spelled out in the most legalistic of terms. --MarkGyver (talk) 19:48, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Mark dug that up a few days ago, and those fansite rules do count as permission to use copyrighted works in a way that is not a fair use if they're properly cited and if we receive advance permission, detailed in section 3. I'd argue that calling book text a derivation of images is borderline gaming the system, if only that policy applied to law, but, again, "In all cases we retain copyright ownership and the right of approval in advance of you using any copyright material, [and] we also retain the right to request anyone to remove the material," so it really doesn't make a difference. Since Mark seems to be making some progress with Jagex, which is quite an accomplishment considering how often we've tried to contact them, we may receive permission to use copyrighted works that are unfair uses, and, again, remember that these permissions have no bearing on the cache issue as its completely separate from infringement and fair use. Leftiness 00:09, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Side Note/Clarification - While I am the one who dug up the link to Jagex's policy (I found the link in [[w:c:funorb:Template:Jagex|a template on the FunOrb Wiki]]), It's another Mark that is contacting Jagex about these issues. -- MarkGyver (talk) 21:14, September 10, 2010 (UTC)
I do realize that there are two active Marks at the time, so I should have clarified. However, Mark ("Tedjuh") posted a link to those same fansite rules on September 3rd in Forum:Changing_the_logo. Because he posted the link on September 3rd and you ("MarkGyver") posted the link on September 7th, I said that Mark ("Tedjuh") already posted it. Leftiness 16:38, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - It all depends on what they are being used for. Like ones needed for quests and such should be kept. Dungeoneering Journals should be kept...because they provide all kinds of useful info. That's how I see it at least. HaloTalk 19:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that it's not a fair use to use 100% of the book contents because of the substantiality section. However, Jagex has pointed out that they're amenable to an agreement to use copyrighted content in "unfair" ways, such as copying entire books or using their images in our logo, as long as we get their advance permission and we reference the works correctly. Really, though: the rules for fansites just re-hashes the system as it is; even without the rules for fansites that Jagex has posted, if Jagex gives permission to use the images, and they can use restrictions such as referencing specifications, then copyright law has no bearing. Per Section 106, the copyright owner has the right to give others rights to use the work. I've been saying on multiple occasions in multiple discussions that all we need is proper permission to solve all of our legal debates, but I can understand that it makes a difference when Jagex says it, too. Leftiness 03:22, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - What is wrong with book contents? What if you don't have the requirements for a quest, and you want to read the book? you go to the book page. It is just helping. And if this violates copyright, isn't saying Plane-freezer Lakhrahnaz illegal too? that is direct copying of something invented by them. If we are forbidding these, we should forbid any copying from runescape. That would hurt the wiki. JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 12:13, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Really, the only way we're allowed to have this wiki is by the law of fair use. If it weren't for fair use, then it would be illegal for me to say "Runescape" because Jagex owns that word. However, Congress ruled that some uses are fair. Specifically, uses such as commentary are fair. Since we comment on the subjects of Runescape, our uses are fair. However, fair use has rules, one of which is substantiality. I and others believe that using 100% of the book contents is not fair use because it does not pass the substantiality requirement of fair uses; it's using too much of Jagex's property to quote 100% of their book. On the other hand, saying "Plane-freezer Lakhrahnaz," conversationally, as I understand, is insubstantial, so I don't think the lack of purpose is too bad, and I think the de minimis defense would apply, too. To learn about the de minimis defense and fair use in general, I would appreciate it if you would read the information provided by Stanford; I think it does a good job of explaining fair use to those who don't want to read the legalese, and the examples at the end are very helpful. Leftiness 19:02, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

{{closure|Discussion has died}} svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:07, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Closed as in no concensus, as in remove the dialog? Mr. Anura 01:13, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

It will be closed however the sysop who reads this entire thread finds appropriate. :3 svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 01:21, October 5, 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should be closed and the text removed due to previous consensus on the matter and due to law, though I would like to give Jagex the opportunity to respond to Mark's (Tedjuh's) request about permission to use copyrighted material in a non-fair way. Leftiness 04:30, October 5, 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Bad news (I received this mail about a week (maybe 2) ago, but somehow I completely missed it lol, probably because of that new Gmail Priority Mail). Mark (talk) 13:31, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mark,


Thanks for being so patient, as you know I’ve been waiting for a response from our internal legal team.


You asked whether we could allow you to use NPC dialogue transcripts on your website and whether that would be in breach of our terms & conditions. Having discussed this with our internal lawyer I’m afraid the answer is that we can’t give you permission to post these transcripts on your site. I realise this may not be the answer you were hoping for, however I’m sure you can appreciate the need for us to give you an official response in line with our terms and conditions.


This was not on our radar until you asked a specific question. The answer above is a legal answer to a specific legal question - please don’t feel that we don’t appreciate what you do for the Runescape community .


Again thanks for your patience, I hope this answers your question.


— Mod Hohbein
That's sad. :( svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 13:58, October 8, 2010 (UTC)


This request for closure is complete A user has requested closure for Delete book contents?. Request complete. The reason given was: This time because we have Jagex's official response

svco4bY.png3Gf5N2F.png 13:58, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

RIP - Noes JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 17:07, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ouch - ;_; bad_fetustalk 17:08, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Closed ʞooɔ 18:02, October 8, 2010 (UTC)