Sythe Rule Reform -- which rules do you want gone?

Hey hi heeeeeeeeeey, I actually made the rule you guys are bickering about

I'm unfamiliar with Gracious' situation but the rule, in point form, highlights the following:

• If someone is commissioned to make something like a personalized, custom script, the person who hired them has every right to resell unless resale is against terms in the commission contract. With no contract and without it having been explicitly mentioned, you can assume that resale is allowed.
• If someone buys a copy of a script or software and decides to resell it, that is not allowed unless the original creator consents or if the script or software can be made unique with some kind of serial key. If I bought a script for example and made 100 copies and sold each one, that is against the rule. If there was a binding lock like a serial key on the script, then I would have to sell and give away my only copy. The latter is allowed.

tl;dr literally as the rule says, if there is expressed consent from the creator that reselling is allowed, then reselling is allowed.

Take what I say with a grain of salt though. I may have made the rule, but I don't have any say about what it means anymore. My explanation just demonstrates what I meant when I made it.

Abso-fucking-lutely.

This rule is the dumbest shit in the world. I understand its significance, but there has to be an exception policy.

 

If someone buys a copy of a script or software and decides to resell it, that is not allowed unless the original creator consents or if the script or software can be made unique with some kind of serial key. If I bought a script for example and made 100 copies and sold each one, that is against the rule. If there was a binding lock like a serial key on the script, then I would have to sell and give away my only copy. The latter is allowed.




The creator didnt agree he could resell it.

HE ACTUALLY SAYS HE DOESNT ALLOW RESALE OF HIS SCRIPTS.


Tl;dr=gracious is fucked lol

Also I want ur zombie rank pls $100

 

Thanks for the insight. How would a contract to prohibit the resale of a script compare to, say, prohibition of resale of an RS account?

(Also, I'm not referring to the Gracious case at all, rather than resale in general since Gracious seems to have made his situation a lot more complicated)

 

The difference is that you can't make copies of a Runescape account. If the script you have is unique and cannot be copied, then regardless of what the owner says, you should be able to resell it. Same goes for a Runescape account. Think of it like a yard sale.

 

Okay what about this: a programmer creates a complete web application, say a CRM system, which consists of 25% frontend code which has all the client-specific setup like the template/webpages, and 75% backend code which basically is a custom written library which serves as the boilerplate of basically any CRM system you could develop.

I see this is slightly bigger than a 'script' but you get the point: the client who bought the CRM application can resell the whole codebase and a new user can then build his CRM application by only coding the remaining 25% which is specific to him.

The legitimacy of this I wouldnt know, it should be stated in the terms I guess.

If you buy a book, you can't just go to the local copy shop and start selling copies to your neighbours. The same should apply to software IMO because when someone starts writing custom code for someone, there is often an element involved that the price can be kept low, because the programmer aims to resell his software several times.

I do feel that this applies more to larger projects than to small scripts though. The smaller a project is, the more custom the code becomes

 

It seems arbitrary to make a distinction between finite goods and goods that can be copied. If you create something that can be infinitely copied, and sell it, it is entirely out of your hands to control it without the use of force, as Richard mentioned. If the author doesn't want his goods to be copied, he has to make a good that CAN'T be copied.

It's not like copying of a work of authorship destroys the original.

People should always respect contracts they enter into voluntary agreement with, but having a contract include "I still own this thing even if I sell it to you" really only applies to something finite that you can lease, not something that can be copied infinitely with no affect on the original work.

@Flamedog, I understand and sympathize with authors of code, literature, art, etc. However, consider your hypothetical here.

Why can't you sell copies to your neighbors?

 

Gracious paid Rare Scripts to create them a private OPEN SOURCE script. Gracious paid for the script itself, not a copy of the script. He instructed rare scripts on how to create it and paid for it. In my opinion, the way the sale had been done I believe the script is Gracious' property and they should be able to do whatever they want with the script.

 

Unfortunately in the case of scripts there are no locking mechanisms that I know of, since a script is just plaintext unless the bot it's made for can take a compiled version. Even then, most bots are made in Java and Java classes/applications are notoriously easy to decompile. The rule I made was specific and split the two types of goods in an effort to allow some kind of framework for developers to work with when making things like scripts.

 

I think that if a user has done something and then ban evaded after that but then has a proof that he was not worth an original ban - that should be an instant unban and no such thing as going through a pardon system, votes etc. You post the proof, you get unbanned, that's it. Less time wasted for both, that person and staff.

Also this makes no sense:

''You must dispute your ban within one month it was given. After one month, the ban will not be reversed, and the dispute will be denied.''

This should be 6-12 months or there should be no time frame at all, because that person might not be able to dispute that quick. What if a person got hacked and did not even notice his ban? This should be changed.

 

Admins not having free reign to ban anyone and everyone they see fit.

 

I haven't seen this happen at all, where's an example? I doubt that type of behaviour is tolerated regardless of their status here..

 

I mean Finn did that a fucking lot but everyone knows that. Hasn't happened in the last few years to my knowledge?

 

Yeah, I haven't seen it since that episode. And hence why that behaviour isn't tolerated anymore. I know bik rich has his foot down on things like that.

 

If there's no way to prevent copying, the seller should treat & price their product as such, rather than trying to enforce a monopoly over it through threat of bans. I'm sure programmers/writers would love if they could sell the same item over and over and over, but that model only exists in copyright, which is certainly not a part of the free market whatsoever.

 

What you're suggesting is an increase in price of certain goods by a factor of at least 500% lol. As a developer, I'd never want to write a script without knowing that some kind of copyright rules would be enforced. If there was no enforcing, then I'd sure as hell jack my price up a shitload to make up for the fact that people are reselling my shit and I'm not getting even a percentage of that cut.

 

So you're saying if I put a lot of time and effort into writing a guide, I would have to spend ages to find a buyer who is willing to shell out the initial investment as well as the time and effort to reselling the guide to make a profit from it? I'd never find a buyer that way. Why would someone spend a shitton of money for a guide they have no idea what's in, never been reviewed (as you'd be the first one buying it to resell it), and have no idea how marketable it is? All the buyer has to go on is my word, which is biased and unreliable.

It should stay the way it is, imo. It's a fair system.

 

After having a thought, I understand both parties but I think the rule is fine as it is now. You cannot sell something somebody else created unless you have agreed you can.

This is just for my case, I should have asked my seller if I could resell his script, nothing more.

Thanks all for your input I truly think the ruling is fine.

 

I also think the ruling was just. Glad to have ya back, Gracious. Sorry everyone had to go through all of that. The person who reported you got banned for evading anyways; he lost his $5 donor and his $20 avatar xD.

 

You can obfuscate a simba script quite easily. But Rare Scripts is a joke of a scripter and doesn't know how.