He can't accept it because you really can't "copyright" a build - That's completely unfeasible and unrealistic. A player can't prove that a build is "theirs" and if you allow them to "copyright" a build regardless, you're just opening the doors to players "copyrighting" dirt huts, wood houses and such. Not to mention, there's literally no possible way to enforce something like this - If we did, does that mean a player can go around filing complaints on people who have a remotely similar build to the said copyrighted build? This just doesn't make sense and isn't realistic, at all.

Even though this is an economy server, there's literally no way to enforce "copyrights" and trying to do so would be completely unrealistic. It makes absolutely no sense to check the logs for something you can't even enforce.

 

3points claim is that 50k of the agreement was for the idea of the build, that is the inner workings of the machine, which he has provided his own logs for as evidence. This part of the agreement was fulfilled, therefore 3point should not be obliged to return that portion of the payment.

What I see going on here is that matrix is attempting to take advantage of the ambiguity of the agreement to profit. This not being a "court of law", as so often pointed out when people attempt to loan shark and take advantage of other users, should be considered. Simply because we cannot "copyright" a structure, should not mean that an otherwise outstanding member of the community should be punished simply because another (may I point out less outstanding) is playing dirty.

There are no "doors being opened" as you put UnitedStates, as I would hope that staff on this server have enough common sense to not see that happen.

 

Rather than seeing it as copyright, the agreement was 50k to be shown something. That is an enforceable agreement that doesn't touch on copyright or anything similar.

EDIT: My post may not be the clearest. What I was trying to say is that there is a difference between copyright and an agreement. Enforcing copyright would be something like "Oi I built that design first, and you don't have my permission to build it so you owe me money". Whereas, "I'll give you 50k for the idea of a build" is an agreement that is easy to enforce.

Not applying this to any facts/this case, just setting out what I believe is an important distinction.

 

I see absolutely no evidence of that provided - Chat logs can be easily modified, and without a proper log search, there's quite a possibility that 3point could be making that up. Might I also add, the agreement shown in this screenshot;

Shows that @matrix_rep and @3point14mp reached an agreement where @matrix_rep would provide @3point14mp $120,000 ECD for @3point14mp to build two "chigga machines" in 5 days. Not once did it state him agreeing to "50k for the idea" - Not to mention, "50k for the idea" is quite a broad statement - And you can't really enforce statements that are broad - What does that statement mean? 50k to be shown? 50k to be able build it? 50k to license it? There's so many ways to interpret that statement, and not to mention, that statement was never included in the agreement. They may have just been in the negotiations when that was said - And the evidence is in @matrix_rep's favor, as the agreement clearly says nothing about $50,000 ECD being provided for the idea.

I don't see how @matrix_rep is attempting to take advantage of @3point14mp, at all. They literally just made an (unsuccessful) agreement, and now moderators want the money paid back - I don't see @matrix_rep is trying to take advantage of him here. @3point14mp is not being punished at all - He is just required to pay back the money he received via the transaction.

As far as a "copyright" agreement goes, yes there is being doors opened - People can "copyright" dirt huts, wooden houses and such - And that's completely unrealistic.

Yes, I agree with you that there is an important distinction. However, like you said, that statement isn't supposed to be applied to this specific case;

According to at @3point14mp's own logs, he stated this:

Firstly, as I've said above "50k for the idea" is a very broad statement which can be interpreted numerous ways. I might also mention, matrix clearly said he was thinking about an agreement like that - They may as well have been in the agreement - There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he paid 50k specifically for the idea and most evidence provided is in favor of matrix.

tl;dr: @3point14mp still has a just legal obligation to return the full $120,000 ECD back to @matrix_rep as per staff instructions.

 

We all know that the understanding of the agreement was 50k for the idea, whether 3point can provide concrete evidence of that or not, it could always be checked in the chat logs. Matrix, as I've said already, is trying to have the full amount returned due to the ambiguity and lack of evidence in the agreement. That is taking advantage of 3point.

3point is being punished here. He handed over information, as per part of the agreement, in return for money. He is now expected to return all of that money, despite having completed part of the agreement that entitles him to 50k.

Matrix and yourself should stop wasting staff time imo.

 

Thank you for this. I understand that I was also at fault for not finishing the build on time and dragging it to the point where you had to file a complaint. Let us both take this as a lesson moving forward.

 

Locked