So let's say you see a Redstone contraption, then you build it... then modify the Input ( Button/Plate ) Or the Circuitry/Timing. Do you consider it an original design or how drastic does something have to be for your to consider it "Yours'? Or do you never consider it yours and simply see it as a Modified Version of Someone else's design?
Where do you draw the line between what is yours and what is not... i.e (Saw video on a device but never the tutorial) or (Saw a video and tutorial but made it better/faster or more efficient)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check it out for awesome tutorials and constant content!
The only thing I would take credit for would be the modifications I made. Everything else, like the base contraption the credit goes to the originator; that is when I know whom that is. Even then I would not take credit for such, as it originated from somewhere.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My First World, always getting back to is a pleasure I enjoy with each new update that brings in more things to add in.
A common fallacy when people think about copying is that taking something and intentionally modifying, even by a great amount, automatically makes it an original. That is not the case under law since there are several circumstances that might make what is seemingly an exact duplicate an "original" and what is vastly modified still a copy. I have no qualms about copying a tutorial and using the contraption during gameplay, since the person posting the tutorial creates an environment encouraging the copying of the design for use inside the game; however, I would never state that something even remotely based on any tutorial was my original design.
A common fallacy when people think about copying is that taking something and intentionally modifying, even by a great amount, automatically makes it an original. That is not the case under law since there are several circumstances that might make what is seemingly an exact duplicate an "original" and what is vastly modified still a copy. I have no qualms about copying a tutorial and using the contraption during gameplay, since the person posting the tutorial creates an environment encouraging the copying of the design for use inside the game; however, I would never state that something even remotely based on any tutorial was my original design.
So with that being said.. the 2x2 Jeb Door is simply a modification( Complicated at that ) of the simple 2x2 retracting sticky piston door? Would the argument then be "well my Jeb Door is Flush" then the sticky piston door guy can say.. "well my CAN be flush but it leaves the pistons exposed"...? Just thoughts on where the line of originality is drawn?
Damn Dent thats a tough one. I like to take credit for my modifications, but never credit for the idea or the base mechanism. For example, my working castle gate. There are a million of them out there, with just as many configurations for the circuitry. So when I'm showing it off, I take credit for having one of the smallest ones I've ever seen, but not the idea of the gate.
So with that being said.. the 2x2 Jeb Door is simply a modification( Complicated at that ) of the simple 2x2 retracting sticky piston door? Would the argument then be "well my Jeb Door is Flush" then the sticky piston door guy can say.. "well my CAN be flush but it leaves the pistons exposed"...? Just thoughts on where the line of originality is drawn?
It's not a black and white situation. In the US (which has different principles imbedded in their intellectual property laws than many other parts of the world), fair use is determined based primarily on the combined effects of 4 separate tests. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article discussing those tests:
Conversely, in a world of billions of people, it is possible to come up with the exact same original idea as someone else without ever having been exposed to the other person's ideas, so similarity to something else by itself doesn't necessarily say that the item is a copy of something else.
Damn Dent thats a tough one. I like to take credit for my modifications, but never credit for the idea or the base mechanism. For example, my working castle gate. There are a million of them out there, with just as many configurations for the circuitry. So when I'm showing it off, I take credit for having one of the smallest ones I've ever seen, but not the idea of the gate.
True but in theory the first person that implemented the Idea in Minecraft couldn't really say that design is theirs either. Simply something that's been around for ages.. just implemented in a video game.? Right or Wrong?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check it out for awesome tutorials and constant content!
True but in theory the first person that implemented the Idea in Minecraft couldn't really say that design is theirs either. Simply something that's been around for ages.. just implemented in a video game.? Right or Wrong?
I'm going to go with no. Yes, castle gates that move up and down have been around for a thousand years...but not one that runs on redstone! Now if we built it with ropes and pulleys, then no, its the same thing. I think something based on an original idea or design, if modified enough, does qualify as "new" or "original".
think about it this way every situation you use a RS contraption in may require you to modify the original in some way so every RS usage may be considered original.
The original designer/creator should always be credited. Asterisks noting credit for modification that either improved performance, resource usage, or results with the contraption in question are acceptable, as long as you give the credit where the credit is due. My first cobblestone generator was a copy of the original self building bridge from the original tutorial layout. I made sure to always state that I copied the design. (drew it on graph paper while in tut, then hopped over to my world and built)
If I alter a design, it does not matter how much modification went into the mechanism. I will still say, "This is a modified version of [user]'s [device]." There has even been a time where I designed my own mechanism (a dual-read D flip flop using piston logic and repeater loops as a memory latch) completely from scratch, and later found out it was almost identical to the one designed by Properinglish19. All credit went to him for the design, and I stated this in a video as well as the OP of my project's thread.
That being said, I don't believe all designs of specific mechanisms should be credited to the very first player to conceive one with redstone. If I design my own 8-bit carry-lookahead adder, I'm not going to hunt down the first person to achieve this with redstone. Nor am I going to consider it the work of Brent Kung or Peter M. Kogge for designing them in real-world electronics. If I build a CPU that follows MIPS or HACK architecture, that is a different story, but now we're starting to get a bit more abstract.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Where do you draw the line between what is yours and what is not... i.e (Saw video on a device but never the tutorial) or (Saw a video and tutorial but made it better/faster or more efficient)
So with that being said.. the 2x2 Jeb Door is simply a modification( Complicated at that ) of the simple 2x2 retracting sticky piston door? Would the argument then be "well my Jeb Door is Flush" then the sticky piston door guy can say.. "well my CAN be flush but it leaves the pistons exposed"...? Just thoughts on where the line of originality is drawn?
It's not a black and white situation. In the US (which has different principles imbedded in their intellectual property laws than many other parts of the world), fair use is determined based primarily on the combined effects of 4 separate tests. Here is a link to the Wikipedia article discussing those tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
Conversely, in a world of billions of people, it is possible to come up with the exact same original idea as someone else without ever having been exposed to the other person's ideas, so similarity to something else by itself doesn't necessarily say that the item is a copy of something else.
I'm going to go with no. Yes, castle gates that move up and down have been around for a thousand years...but not one that runs on redstone!
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Retired StaffThat being said, I don't believe all designs of specific mechanisms should be credited to the very first player to conceive one with redstone. If I design my own 8-bit carry-lookahead adder, I'm not going to hunt down the first person to achieve this with redstone. Nor am I going to consider it the work of Brent Kung or Peter M. Kogge for designing them in real-world electronics. If I build a CPU that follows MIPS or HACK architecture, that is a different story, but now we're starting to get a bit more abstract.