archive-com.com » COM » R » REN-REYNOLDS.COM

Total: 20

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • ren reynolds - writing
    The use and advantages of distance learning and an overview of Lotus Learning Space product The US SAFE act EU Encryption Law Lotus Gold July 16 1999 Op Ed Value Chain Innovation Lotus Gold July 1999 Value chain theory technology and enterprise integration for competitive advantage Tax Havens Vertial Portals Lotus Gold June 11 1999 Op Ed Responsive Creative Sametime Lotus Gold June 1999 Synchronous communications groupware and Lotus Sametime Patenting business models JIT learning Lotus Gold June 4 1999 Op Ed The Life of Linux Internet Works 20 June 1999 pp 65 69 The case for using Linux with a brief history of the operating system and case studies Computer Ethics and the Millennium Bug Philosophy Now 23 Spring 1999 pp 36 39 An analysis of the limits of computer decision making One to One Marketing May 1999 White paper on the history of relationship marketing and the value of one to one techniques Internet and Strategy Priceline s model Deep Computing Lotus Gold May 28 1999 Op Ed 24x7 The Untold Story Lotus Gold May 1999 The real costs 24x7x365 operations weighting staff vs technical measure in the world of affordable server clustering eCrime Spy Details on line euro mergers Lotus Gold May 21 1999 Op Ed Building New Markets Lotus Gold May 1999 A manifesto for service development in rapidly developing markets Knowledge Management and R5 Lotus Gold May 1999 Domino R5 as the basis of a Knowledge Management Infrastructure JIT Economy Corporate Streaming Intranet Portals Lotus Gold May 19 1999 Op Ed Who s got the Message about the Millennium Lotus Gold May 1999 Y2K projects messaging infrastructure and Lotus Domino Euro Inter bank trust and personal information Lotus Gold April 19 1999 Op Ed Melissa Virus e Commerce Auctions Lotus Gold April 1999 Op Ed

    Original URL path: http://www.ren-reynolds.com/Publications1999.html (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • ren reynolds - writing
    UK Government s strategy for electronic service delivery Lotus Gold December 1998 An analysis and application to industry of the government s strategic vision for e service delivery Back to School Internet Works 13 December 1998 pp 84 87 The role of education and training for new media professionals including an overview of university new media courses Brand Ideas Internet Works 10 September 1998 pp 88 91 On line brand

    Original URL path: http://www.ren-reynolds.com/Publications1998.html (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Paper Title: Arial 18pt Centred
    Jaslow 12 overturned an argument from Baker v Seldon 13 the idea expression dichotomy ruled out copyright in a form holding that blank forms may be copyrighted if they are sufficiently innovative that their arrangement of information is itself informative supra at A File Structures CCC Information Services v Maclean Hunter Market Reports 14 later ruled that copyright could subsist in both items within the collection and the collection as a whole sating Id at Discussion 2 listings also embody sufficient originality to pass Feist s low threshold These include 1 the selection and manner of presentation of optional features for inclusion Do avatars fall under the US definition of a collection for copyright purposes Applying this mixture of case law to avatars we have the very same issues faced with the definition of database under EU law That is while copyright can subsist in a collection claims of right would be moot as again it is the developer publisher that defines the database schema so may enjoy copyright in the collection as a whole whereas it is the player that creates each avatar and selects the weighting of their characteristics hence the status of an avatar as an individual work is unaffected Computer generated and computer aided Works When a player eagerly un wraps their MMORPG software package puts the disk in a computer runs it and generates a character they have created something that was not there when they took the wrapping off the software package As we have established above copyright does not subsist in this creation however it came about But let us suppose for a moment that the thing created might be open to copyright this raises the question of who the author would be adjudged to be Computer generated works under UK law The concept of a computer generated work is specifically referenced in UK law The UK Copyright Act sec 9 3 In the case of a literary dramatic musical or artistic work which is computer generated the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken And Id at sec 178 computer generated in relation to a work means that the work is generated by computer in circumstances such that there is no human author of the work This provision in the Act was created to reflect that fact that in an increasingly computerised society a growing number of works my fall outside copyright as no human author is directly responsible for the creation of the work Millard 2000 As with computer program the term computer generated is not defined further However in the case of Express Newspapers v Liverpool Daily Post Echo 15 the work under consideration was seen to fall within the scope of computer generated In this case a computer program was used to generate unique five letter sequences which were printed on 22 million cards as part of a competition called Millionaire of the Month Council for the defence argued that as there was no human author copyright did not subsist hence the defendant was free to publish the winning sequence is their newspaper Ruling Whitford J defined the role of the computer as instrumental saying The computer was no more than a tool and rejected the defence argument stating it would be to suggest that if you write your work with a pen it is the pen which is the author of the work rather than the person who drives the pen In the ruling the author of the work was adjudged to be the programmer Express v Liverpool Daily Post establishes that in practice copyright can subsist in computer generated works under UK law Moreover the case seems to suggest that a work is computer generated when the computer is in sense acting on its own to produce the actual works i e in this case an algorithm was used to select each of the five letter sequences rather than a human making any decision or creative act in each case Most relevant to the matter at hand the ruling seems to interpret arrangements necessary for the creation of the work as the use of a computer program as opposed to the creation of that program While Whitford J s pen analogy supports this reading of the Act i e it is the user of the pen not the designer or maker of the pen that is the author the ruling is slightly ambiguous as the person adjudged to be the author was both the user of the program and the programmer Under UK law if an avatar were a work who would be the Author First it should be re iterated that that the concept of a computer generated work rests on the pre existing concept of work the only aspect that it modifies is attribution of authorship hence the discussion of copyright subsistence above is not affected by the existence of computer generated works in UK law Having said this if copyright was to subsist in an avatar case law suggests that authorship is granted to the user of the software not the developer of the software or the software itself Computer generated works under US law Again US laws lacks the categories provided under UK law Hence each option for authorship user developer publisher user and developer publisher computer or no one has to be examined individually on the basis of case law Unfortunately as things presently stand there are arguments to support each interpretation of authorship The arguments for user and developer publisher are as follows Users could argue that a computer program is effectively an instrument of user in a relationship that is akin to a work for hire agreement This interpretation of computer as tool is supported by the final report of The National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works commissioned by the US Congress in 1974 However the final report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works 1978 did not take this view suggesting instead that copyright might rest with the computer Glasser 2001 Developer publishers could argue that a computer generated work is a derivative work of the program in which they hold copyright The force of this argument depends very much on the nature of the final work and its relationship to the original program In MicroStar v FormGen 16 the court considered the nature of addition levels created for the game Duke Nukem 3D and whether they constituted an enhanced game The court ruled that they did as they incorporated pre existing protected works However as Stephens 2002 has argued if we try to apply this to virtual items we will find that they are not derivative as they simply expedite the realization of a more advanced form of the pre existing work Avatars as computer generated works under US law As there is no specific provision for computer generated works under US the most likely test that would be applied for copyright subsistence and authorship is the derivative work test But as outlined above virtual items are unlikely to be adjudged to be derivative works which lends support to earlier arguments that copyright does not subsist under US law and hence the question of authorship is void Are Monopoly rights breached when an avatar is transfered Molly Stephens 2002 has also argued that even if copyright did subsist in an avatar and if that copyright were held by the developer publisher the act of selling an avatar does not necessarily infringe the developer publisher s rights Under US law the five exclusive rights held by a copyright holder are the right to make copies prepare derivative works sell copies perform the work publicly display the work publicly As copyright subsists in the code of the game and not in the data which individuates a particular avatar and as when an avatar is transferred between individuals object code is not copied Stephens argues that transferring an avatar between individuals is not a breach of the monopoly in making copies preparing derivative works see above also or selling copies A player might breach the display monopoly if they advertised their avatar using screen shots that included copyrighted work but this is not essential to selling an avatar Lastly a sale does not constitute a public performance as Stephens argues the performance would be of the games a whole which remains under the control of the developer publisher In summary selling an avatar is not a breach of the developer publishers copyright in the game are EULA terms that ban avartar tranfer enforsable Returning to the type of MMORPG EULA evidenced earlier what are we to make of these in the light of the status of copyright discussed above This paper has argued that copyright does not subsist in an avatar If this is the case signing a piece of paper or clicking I ACCEPT on a screen with the words I accept that you hold copyright in an avatar does nothing to change this Contract does not change copyright law it simply applies it Licensing side step But a developer publisher does not have to make any claims about property in avatars or the extent of those rights in order to attempt to control avatar sales A developer publisher can say that the licence under which the player has been granted permission to use the developer publisher s copyrighted work i e the core MMROPG game is such that the player can only use they character that they have personally initiated and developed The question that faces anyone who wishes to sell or purchase an avatar is whether such a clause would be enforceable Limits of contract Under EU law there are strong public policy limits set on consumer contacts by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 17 which states that clause that causes a significant imbalance in the parties rights Id at art 3 1 are unfair as are one that are not individually negotiated Id at art 3 1 However the Directive does not pertain to contracts where the consumer is acting for purposes relating to his trade business or profession Id at art 1 c hence commercial transactions over avatars are unlikely to be covered Moreover the directive does not apply to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract Id at art 4 2 now as the matter under consideration is a players avatar and the use of the client software and MMORPG game in general there is certainly a case to suggest that such terms do pertain to the main subject matter of the contract hence fall outside the scope of the directive US law has no direct equivalent to the EU s Unfair Terms Directive In fact recent moves in the US such as the Federal DMCA Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the proposed uniform State UCITA the Uniform Computer Information Transaction Act law tend to derive public policy from an assumption of market neutrality rather than giving consumer the benefit of the doubt Nimmer 1998 So under both EU and US contract law terms in a EULA which effectively precluded the transfer or sale of avatars between players would be seen as enforceable But this it not the end the story for the enforceability of contract terms Copyright misuse Many jurisdictions have adjudged that there are sound public policy reasons for limiting the control of works and other materials by virtue of the rights granted under various intellectual property laws If a copyright holder includes terms in a contract which limit or prohibit acts that would otherwise by permissible under prevailing copyright laws they may under US law be adjudged to be in abuse of intellectual property law on a number of grounds that they are violating the public policy that motivates the law that the terms are anti competitive or they the terms breach anti trust laws Elkin Koren 2001 What s more anyone claiming an alleged abuse does no have to demonstrate injury as a result of said acts The principle that an intellectual property law could not on the basis of public policy be leveraged to restrict otherwise permissible acts was established in the case of Morton Salt v Suppiger 18 where the maker of a salt tablet machine attempted to licence the use of their machines to farmers on the condition that only the machine makers salt tablets were used with the machine Here the Supreme Court ruled that while the grant of patent provides monopoly rights it equally forbids the use of the patent to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the Patent Office and which it is contrary to public policy to grant Twenty or so years before this in Motion Picture Patents v Universal Film 19 the Supreme Court made the general ruling that that a patent licence could not be used to prescribe a restricted use to the detriment of the public This case concerned a licence for projecting kinetoscopes which stated that the film projectors could only be used with films that projected film patented by the licensing company in a very strongly worded ruling the court stated A restriction which would give to the plaintiff such a potential power for evil over an industry which must be recognized as an important element in the amusement life of the nation under the conclusions we have stated in this opinion is plainly void because wholly without the scope and purpose of our patent laws and because if sustained it would be gravely injurious to that public interest which we have seen is more a favorite of the law than is the promotion of private fortunes Here it is interesting that the court took into account the amusement life of the nation and did not restrict itself to purely commercial considerations While it was in 1968 that the US Supreme court confirmed that the scope of rights in a copyright work is just those rights outlined in the act stating in Fortnightly v United Artists 20 that The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work If a person without authorization from the copyright holder puts a copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these exclusive rights he infringes the copyright If he puts the work to a use not enumerated in 1 section 1 of the prevailing act he does not infringe It was not until the 1990 case Lasercombe v Reynolds 21 that the Supreme Court considered whether there was a defence of copyright misuse based on principles equivalent to Morton Salt It established that there is stating since copyright and patent law serve parallel public interests a misuse defense should apply to infringement actions brought to vindicate either right Does a EULA constitute Copyright misuse under US law The striking similarity between the control that a EULA seeks to extend to avatars and other virtual items i e using copyright in a game system as a basis to restrict certain uses of an avatar and other virtual items that would ordinarily be permitted by virtue of that right and cases that have been judged by the US supreme court strong suggests that not only are such terms un enforceable but they that would be ruled misuse of copyright can avatars constitue part of legal identity In certain instances the law protects they way that things are identified The law can also protect associations with an identity such as reputation or good will There are a wide range of examples of this type of law such as trademark the European notion of moral rights in copyright and US rights of publicity laws Now if we assume that a person sells services within an online world say they are a guide for new players of an MMORPG they will be come associated with this trade by way of their avatar As some laws protect the association between identities and trade it is possible that the avatar is protected in some way Trade mark Trademark is an internationally recognized property which broadly speaking grants certain monopoly rights in symbols words or pictures associated with a particular product or service As with copyright there are international agreements relating to trademark such as the Paris Convention 22 and the 1994 GATT Agreement 23 and state laws such as the Lanham Act 24 in the US and the UK Trademark Act 25 However as always each is subtly different in letter and interpretation As Stephens 2002 has detailed under US law our online guide is likely to enjoy protection under the Lanham Act by virtue of the fact that at the very least the name of their avatar will be unique in the virtual world and though its association with a service could be recognised as an unregistered trademark This would grant a monopoly right in the use of the avatar for commerce within the given virtual world However while trademark is alienable it is moot whether the same laws would in them selves enable the sale or licensing of the avatar due to the difficulties in maintain good will in the case of a sale and quality in the service in the case of licensing though both points are arguable While UK law does in effect provide protection for unregistered trade marks this is under the remedy of passing off so in theory an avatar may be protected under UK law However passing off is negative right being based in part on the common law of deceit and in part on rights to restrain the use of a name by another in circumstances where use might bring about legal action as established in Routh v Webster 26 Phillips Firth 2001 hence does not confer positive rights of property in an name or avatar Rights of Publicity In the

    Original URL path: http://www.ren-reynolds.com/downloads/HandsOffMYavatar.htm (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Untitled Document
    Companies and Games This list does not attempt to be a complete list computer games or games companies rather it is a collection of links to those that tend to be discussed in Games Studies debate and literature Game companies Rockstar Games The Grand Theft Auto people Sony Online Entertainment The EverQuest people Small and or independent and or just weird Invisible city games In there own words Invisible City Productions is a group of collaborating artists writers zine editors and game designers who are dedicated to creating promoting and distributing alternatives to the products and activities designated as entertainments by a monolithic cultural empire game Lab Erric Zimmermanm and others Persuasive Games commercial arm of the people that bring you Water Cooler Games and ludology org and Powerful Robot Games and newsgaming com Skotos Erm an interactive storybuilding site community thing With forum MMORPGs MUDs etc There are a LOT of MUDs and MMORPGs The list below is just the big ones For a complete list go here The Mud Connector Main MUD list MMORPG Graphical MUD list Anarchy Online In dark alleys beneath gleaming towers and the incandescent hypnotic glow of glooming streetlights Dark age of Camelot MMORPG by Mythic Project Entropia The infamous virtual world real money MMORPG EverQuest Your in our world now Lineage The MMORPG everyone in the West forgets this is by far the biggest virtual world with subscribed players in the millions Star Wars Galaxies or the Sims with its wide demographic appeal may top it of course And yes this is the one where Clans allegedly kill each other in real life Ultima Online Home page The Sims Online MMORPG or just a McDonaldsTM advert You decide Star Wars Galaxies This could be the big one and another SOE product out of the Austin studio I believe Art This section of links relates to the intersection between computer games and art Yes all computer games contain elements of graphic and audio art in them and yes games like Rez and the forthcoming Unity are highly aesthetic but in addition there are a number of artists working in the medium of computer games to create interesting and challenging artistic statements Note in some cases where an artists work includes non game related work I have included references to these works particularly where they incorporate information technology such as search engines or surveillance technology Groups Blast Theory works uncle roy all around you can you see me now TRUCOLD an explicit volume desert rain viewfinder 10 backwards kidnap something american invisible bullets stampede beige programming ensemble Droma Productions works The Buff and the Brutal quake 3 arena machinima jodi Dirk Paesmans and Joan Heemskerk works SOD Wolfenstein 3D hack machinima com Mongrel Matsuko Yokokoji Mervin Jarman Richard Pierre Davis and Graham Harwood works BlackLash Mutation fem ARK Select Parks Archive here Strange Company works Matrix 4x1 Ozymandias eschaton Velvet Strike Artists Works 9 11 Survivor All Your Base Jim Andrews works asteriods Cory Arcangel works nintendo nes cartridges super mario clouds i shot andy warhol video ravings data diaries Tobias Bernstrup works Exceed 4000 2004 Game Modification Unreal Tournament Epic GameEditor UnrealEd Nekropolis 2002 Game Modification Unreal Tournament Epic GameEditor UnrealEd In the Dead of Night 2002 5 11 min loop DVD Potsdamer Platz 2001 Game Modification Unreal Tournament Epic GameEditor UnrealEd Untitled Friedrich Passage 2001 6 30 min loop DVD ame modification Half Life Valve GameEditor Worldcraft Penthouse Idle 2000 10 30 min loop DVD game modification Half Life Valve Game Editor Worldcraft Polygon Lover 2000 20 min loop DVD Game Sin Ritual Gameeditor SinView Tobias Bernstrup Tonight Live 2000 4 30 min loop DVD Game Sin Ritual Gameeditor SinEd Museum Meltdown 1999 game modification Half Life Valve GameEditor Worldcraft Museum Meltdown Episode II The Vilnius Vengeance 1997 game modification Duke Nukem 3D 3D Realms GameEditor Build Museum Meltdown Episode I Arken 1996 game modification Duke Nukem 3D 3D Realms GameEditor Build John Paul Bichard works Staying in to play Natalie Bookchin works Metapet The Intruder Mauro Ceolin works RGBinvaders Sonia Cillari works ISOLA LIGHTSURFACE BOX01 FETO SENSIBLE NEUTRO KOMANDOS SHADOWS BOLA GAMEROOM Leon Cmielewski Josephine Starrs works Bio Tek Kitchen Marathon Infinity mod Brody Condon works waco resurrection 3D PC Computer Game Installation Digital sound and images 3D models Torque game engine 650 polygon john carmack fake screenshot contest ROM check 2002 velvet strike chinatown c0a0 game modification Half Life 2001 worship online game performance Anarchy Online DVD installation looping 9 min white picnic glitch game modification Sims adam killer game modification Half Life downloadable software and DVD installation looping 12 min Gunship Ready game intervention Tribes Arcangel Constantini works atari noise Tom Corby and Gavin Bailey works gameboy ultraF uk reconnoitre notepad Char Davies works Osmose Ephémère DELTA Boris Tellegen works Arcade Dave Dries works Arcade 84 Linda Erceg works Skin Pack Quake II Mary Flanagan works domestic rootings career moves Gonzalo Frasca works September 12th fuchs eckermann Sylvia Eckermann Mathias Fuchs works Expositur a Virtual Knowledge Space 2001 UNREAL engine Auriea Harvey Michaël Samyn works 8 Troy Innocent works semiomorph Toshio Iwai works SimTunes Zina Kaye works observatine Isobel Knowles works BLAM Victor Liu See Le works Clean Weed Ray Gun Lev Manovich and Norman Klein works The Freud Lissitzky Navigator Rosetta Mastrantone works Level 5 Feng Mengbo works ah Q Jeff Minter works Unity Tetsuya Mizuguchi works REZ nullpointer works Q F SKN QQ QQQ PeaceKeeper CCTEX Julian Oliver aka Delire works q3apd deathjam quilited thought organ Quake II q3aPaint Chiara Passa retroyou Ann Maire Schleiner works Epilepsy Virus Patch April 1999 game modification Marathon Infinity Parangari Cutiri March 1999 Present Velvet Strike May 2002 Anime Noir March 2002 Snow Blossom House June 2001 Skool March 2001 Luckykiss xxx November 2000 Gentian Shkurti works Go West Urban Invasion works Invader Van Sowerwine works nerve game girl play Eddo Stern works Summons to Surrender Sheik Attack Vietnam Mon Amour Redball The Fall of the Russian Empire Mir Kursk Chernobyl STNAZA

    Original URL path: http://www.ren-reynolds.com/links.html (2016-02-11)
    Open archived version from archive



  •