25 Sep, 2014, Nathan wrote in the 41st comment:
Votes: 0
Hades_Kane said:
"Maybe it's me, but I think it would be a good thing if there were a specific guide beyond one's personal convictions or the say-so of some "reputable person" to make a decision. I feel like there is an arbitrary element as to what constitutes "too many similarities". "

The specific guide is that if a single line of Diku is used elsewhere? It falls under IP law as a derivative and is thus subject to the license.

It's rather clear cut, and there's no benchmark or "a threshold number of similar messages" that makes something count or not.

The license, the only thing that legally gives anyone ANY authority to use, modify, or run ANY part of Diku MUD, specifies that to use, modify, or run ANY part of Diku MUD you are bound by the terms of the license.

"My problem is that if someone comes along and writes a book or a song that just happens to seem "too similar" that they can be shutdown without a second thought because the first guy has more power than the latter guy."

This is a gross misinterpretation of the intent and application of copyright or IP law. Sure, it may get abused, but everything does and nothing is perfect. But to suggest that anything beyond physical property shouldn't be bound by the laws or notions of ownership is ridiculous.

"Anyone who writes a piece of music and wants to make money via performing it or selling it has to worry about whether it's too similar to some artist they've never heard of or listened to."

Gross exaggeration, and speaking as a musician (shameless plug: facebook.com/criticalfailureus reverbnation.com/criticalfailureus youtu.be/nGmoaG-Ww-s), not actually something that you have to really worry about. There may be a conception that everything that can be done already has been done, or that any new music is just reinventing the wheel, but that's coming from either the uncreative, the uneducated, or the lazy. Besides, "cover bands" are very prolific and unless they are recording and selling other's songs, they can perform them as much as they want without any concern. 90% of the performing musicians or bands in the Shreveport area are cover bands.

"Also, there is a difference between ownerships/rights/etc to a particular program and someone insisting that for every scrap of code, no matter how small the unit or insignificant the purpose, that they alone have the exclusive right to say that no one else can use that code or anything like it without crediting them."

If I wrote that scrap of original, never-before-seen/written code, both legally and ethically, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to place whatever limits on the code as I see fit. If someone doesn't like it… go write their own code, or find someone who has released their code under less restrictive terms. It's a simple thing.


I realize this is a bad example, but to claim you "own" or have rights to the "below" would be borderline insanity:

for(int x=5; x < 10; x++) {
print(x);
}

There is a point where there is nothing original or special about "your" code and so you can't claim someone copied it from you and owes you anything (even if they technically did). One bubble sort algorithm, to use an overly obvious example, is bound to look almost exactly the same as any other no matter what language you write it in.

With regard to text, I think Rarva.Riendf, Quixdhal have stated the essence of the matter better than I can.

Also, it's highly unlikely that it is even possible to write a never seen before/written before piece of code. In the same way, any sensible phrase that you can come up with in English has probably been constructed and perhaps even said/written/etc before. With music there are a limited number of notes and groups of them. Take any sufficiently long or complex piece of music and it will almost certainly contain non-unique segments. At best the whole piece /might/ have some uniqueness, but it's likely to be constructed of much used blocks, even unintentionally. At some point I can argue that plenty of code is created from such segments and, with the exception that we're not allowed to peek, it might be provable that substantial portions of commercial software are exactly that and hardly deserve any sort of protection. When does the sum cease to be more than it's parts?
25 Sep, 2014, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 42nd comment:
Votes: 0
>When does the sum cease to be more than it's parts?

That is the essential sum up of copyright laws problem: this cnanot be defined precisely hence so called "content owners" (rarely the content producers to start with) wanting to start it at a single letter reproduced. Or how long it should last.
This will evolve in times anyway, those people forgot most nations started with no copyright laws for a good reason and did not give a shit about what other were telling about it. USA to begin with.
25 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 43rd comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
I realize this is a bad example, but to claim you "own" or have rights to the "below" would be borderline insanity:

It's a bad example, not because it's short, but because it lacks any creativity. To quote copyright scholar Melville Nimmer, "The smaller the effort (e.g., two words) the greater must be the degree of creativity in order to claim copyright protection."

In Heim v. Universal Pictures (1946), Judge Frank suggested that even the first sentence of the poem Jabberwocky ("`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves") would be protectable due to its originality. Of course the poem was published in 1872, so it's now in the public domain, but it serves as a good example.

A single sentence won't usually meet the criteria for creativity, but if (for example) you copy a novel then you'll be judged on the total amount of copying, not on a per-sentence basis. The same with a MUD - if you copy one message it's unlikely to be a copyright infringement, but if you copy dozens of messages it's much more likely that an infringement will be found.

Furthermore, in the case of MUDs a large number of identical messages goes beyond coincidence, and is very often a sign that the codebase itself may have been copied. In combination with other evidence, it can shift the burden of proof to the MUD owner.
26 Sep, 2014, quixadhal wrote in the 44th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
Furthermore, in the case of MUDs a large number of identical messages goes beyond coincidence, and is very often a sign that the codebase itself may have been copied. In combination with other evidence, it can shift the burden of proof to the MUD owner.


Or… it's a sign that someone wrote a work-alike codebase that is intentionally familiar to a certain other codebase's users. At the end of the day, a given MUD is the combination of the programming code that drives it and the storyline presented by the content (quests, npcs, etc). IMHO, those are the only things worthy of any kind of protection. "Alas, you cannot go that way." is a UI message. If you wanted to make a MUD that was popular amongst ROM players, you'd probably want to make your UI function much like ROM did. That's not a bad thing. Companies do this every day…. it's why most computer software has drop menus at the top of the window, and close buttons in the corner.

If you try to force copyright protection on stupidly small and trivial things like this (even a whole collection of them!), then you're saying you want to force everyone to come up with forced uniqueness. Say goodbye to consistency, as now even a menu may have to be presented as an origami swan that unfolds from the corner because somebody else claimed the drop-from-the-edge version.
26 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 45th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
If you try to force copyright protection on stupidly small and trivial things like this (even a whole collection of them!), then you're saying you want to force everyone to come up with forced uniqueness.

How is that any different from arguing that copyright protection shouldn't apply to a novel, because it's just a collection of "stupidly small and trivial" sentences?
26 Sep, 2014, quixadhal wrote in the 46th comment:
Votes: 0
A novel is a (varyingly) cohesive narrative. The various messages used in a MUD are not. Not that I made a distinction between such messages and the content (plot, narrative, story).

Even a collection of short stories is more than this. Each story has some kind of plot and/or narrative. If it didn't, it wouldn't be a story.
26 Sep, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 47th comment:
Votes: 0
I think the value of the MUD responding using the same, tired old expressions we've been seeing for 20 years is being greatly overestimated, particularly when compared to where the "close" button a computer program is.

I think a much more equal comparison would be if Windows had a specific animation that happened when you clicked the close button in the top right corner of a program, and other people tried to argue that the very specific animation used was an integral part of the user experience of closing a program. Combine that with this hypothetical Windows version having specific animations for a ctrl+c and a ctrl+v, and another for minimizing, and another for opening a file with a double click of the mouse.

Sure, the placement of the close button, the keyboard shortcuts working the same, double clicking opening a file and the ability to minimize a file or folder are all integral parts of a familiar user experience, but to mimic, wholesale, the unique responses to such I think would be an invitation for a company like Microsoft to take action against someone.

We may be speaking hypotheticals here, but I have little doubt if this scenario were to play out, you'd see Microsoft bringing the hammer down.

No one is arguing that Diku owns the rights to being able to type north to move a direction, or that they own someone receiving a message indication the direction they are attempting to go is an invalid direction, or that they own the ability to train a stat, or they own an interface in which to view the vital information about your character… This is what is analogous to your close button and drop down menu comparison.
26 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 48th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
A novel is a (varyingly) cohesive narrative. The various messages used in a MUD are not.

I don't agree. The messages can represent a significant part of the narrative of the MUD, and they each represent elements of a collective whole - they're designed to be viewed together as an overall interactive experience.

I've put more time and creative effort into writing messages than many builders have put into writing areas. If someone decided to copy all of my (hundreds of) combat messages, I would certainly consider that a copyright infringement.
27 Sep, 2014, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 49th comment:
Votes: 0
>We may be speaking hypotheticals here, but I have little doubt if this scenario were to play out, you'd see Microsoft bringing the hammer down.

You mean Apple, and it already did.
Microsoft dont care, really. Most Linux distribution do the same thing etc.
But I think only Apple ever sued for such stupid things. Check for it in the mobile phone area lately…it is so stupid it hurts to know they actually win some of those.
28 Sep, 2014, Nathan wrote in the 50th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
quixadhal said:
A novel is a (varyingly) cohesive narrative. The various messages used in a MUD are not.

I don't agree. The messages can represent a significant part of the narrative of the MUD, and they each represent elements of a collective whole - they're designed to be viewed together as an overall interactive experience.

I've put more time and creative effort into writing messages than many builders have put into writing areas. If someone decided to copy all of my (hundreds of) combat messages, I would certainly consider that a copyright infringement.


You're practically making @Quixadhal's point for him. In the absence of your actual game, the combat messages are not particularly significant. They may be "designed to be viewed together as an overall interactive experience", but without the context of your game they are just individual messages with marginal cohesion. If it was a novel, sharing some identical lines would not make it infringement (as I understand it). If someone made a game that was borderline infringing on yours to begin with (supposing that yours is fairly original) and then copied your messages to boot, that might be different. In that case, though it would just enhance the case that the other game was infringing on your intellectual property not provide proof in and of itself.

A problem that I think Diku has is that it's fairly generic to begin with. Aside from specific names and places, etc within it (i.e. it's world/setting), there is nothing particularly original about it. Any game based in a medieval fantasy world with the usual complement of D&D-esque stuff like orcs, trolls, elves (which arguably D&D simply gamified from existing works of fantasy) and swords and armor, etc could use Diku's messages and it would work fine. There really isn't anything particularly unique about it that I can see besides having actually made a multiplayer text based game using it and being one of the first to do so with a bunch of qualifications like "where players connect over the internet" attached.
28 Sep, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 51st comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
A problem that I think Diku has is that it's fairly generic to begin with.


I think when Diku was the only Diku out there, this argument couldn't be made.

When something has become so prolific as to where a significant chunk of things similar to it are in fact based on or rooted from that, then you might could argue that something is "generic" but that only happens after years of others copying or basing on something like that.

You might find phrases like as generic:
"Alas, you cannot go that way."
"The sky is lit by flashes of lightning and a warm southerly breeze blows."
"You see nothing special about him.
Testchar is in excellent condition."
"Consider killing whom?"

But again, when taken in context of a body of work (and things like "Alas, you cannot go that way" and weather messages and such having a bit of unique flavor to them), it forms something that you can't justify as being devoid of any of its own personality as to somehow not be worth consideration of IP or copyright protection.

The fact that I can log into a game and (more likely than not) accurately identify if it has Diku lineage based on the messsaging alone is really a testament to the fact that taken as a whole, it does form something that is unique to the identity of that game. You don't see MUSH, MUX, or LP games by and large having an interface or messaging that could be confused with Diku.
29 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 52nd comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
In the absence of your actual game, the combat messages are not particularly significant. They may be "designed to be viewed together as an overall interactive experience", but without the context of your game they are just individual messages with marginal cohesion.

I'm afraid that's not the way copyright works. You can't copy the parts you like and then claim they're not protected, just because you're using them in another context.

Nathan said:
If it was a novel, sharing some identical lines would not make it infringement (as I understand it).

Then you apparently don't understand it. While it's possible to use limited portions of someone else's copyrighted work under the fair use doctrine, that defence would apply to specific situations (like commentry or news reporting), it doesn't mean you can help yourself to their intellectual property. As mentioned on the Copyright Office website, "you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent".

Nathan said:
A problem that I think Diku has is that it's fairly generic to begin with. Aside from specific names and places, etc within it (i.e. it's world/setting), there is nothing particularly original about it.

You're seriously trying to argue that Diku doesn't qualify for copyright protection?
29 Sep, 2014, Tyche wrote in the 53rd comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
KaVir said:
quixadhal said:
A novel is a (varyingly) cohesive narrative. The various messages used in a MUD are not.

I don't agree. The messages can represent a significant part of the narrative of the MUD, and they each represent elements of a collective whole - they're designed to be viewed together as an overall interactive experience.

I've put more time and creative effort into writing messages than many builders have put into writing areas. If someone decided to copy all of my (hundreds of) combat messages, I would certainly consider that a copyright infringement.


You're practically making @Quixadhal's point for him. In the absence of your actual game, the combat messages are not particularly significant. They may be "designed to be viewed together as an overall interactive experience", but without the context of your game they are just individual messages with marginal cohesion. If it was a novel, sharing some identical lines would not make it infringement (as I understand it). If someone made a game that was borderline infringing on yours to begin with (supposing that yours is fairly original) and then copied your messages to boot, that might be different. In that case, though it would just enhance the case that the other game was infringing on your intellectual property not provide proof in and of itself.


I'm not sure where you or Quix get the odd notion that literal expression needs to be cohesive or narrative to be protected under copyright.
In fact, one of the tests for aspects of user interfaces being protected by copyright is that they aren't strictly functional or necessary.
So it is just the opposite. That which is strictly functional or necessary, commands like "say", "kill", "go north", lists, sheets and forms (absent explanatory material), system attributes like "strength", "wisdom", "hit points" aren't protected by copyright.
However the output messages are in fact original expression and protected.

Nathan said:
A problem that I think Diku has is that it's fairly generic to begin with. Aside from specific names and places, etc within it (i.e. it's world/setting), there is nothing particularly original about it. Any game based in a medieval fantasy world with the usual complement of D&D-esque stuff like orcs, trolls, elves (which arguably D&D simply gamified from existing works of fantasy) and swords and armor, etc could use Diku's messages and it would work fine. There really isn't anything particularly unique about it that I can see besides having actually made a multiplayer text based game using it and being one of the first to do so with a bunch of qualifications like "where players connect over the internet" attached.

Copyright law protects original expression, not original ideas or systems.
There's a huge difference.
Patent law protects original ideas and systems.
A historical note: There was a patent on networked games, and muds like British Legends, Islands of Kesmai and many of the other commercial muds at the time were paying royalties to the guy who owned it. To my knowledge he never approached non-commercial games. In any case, the patent expired sometime in the early 1990's.

Hades_Kane said:
You might find phrases like as generic:
"Alas, you cannot go that way."
"The sky is lit by flashes of lightning and a warm southerly breeze blows."
"You see nothing special about him.
Testchar is in excellent condition."
"Consider killing whom?"

You don't see MUSH, MUX, or LP games by and large having an interface or messaging that could be confused with Diku.


Yes, there are thousands of ways to express the ideas behind those messages.

I would add that the standard for infringement is a preponderance of evidence.
Capability and access is a factor when alleging infringement.
I can recall multiple times when someone claiming their mud isn't a Diku had made forum/newsgroup posts that
clearly indicated they either couldn't code their way out of paper bag, or had been running a Diku as few as
a couple weeks before running "their brand new from scratch mud".

One can certainly make a legitimate Diku clone. I would contend there are already many out there, like ScryMud or CoffeeMud.
Take LinCity, as an example of a legitimate clone of SimCity.
None of the code, none of the art work, none of the music and none of the hundreds of text messages were used.
30 Sep, 2014, Nathan wrote in the 54th comment:
Votes: 0
@Kavir
That is not at all what I am saying. What I am saying is that I do not believe they are truly protected and even if the letter of the law might support that they are, that it would likely not hold up in a sane, intelligent court. That said, based on that, I would argue that the person copying is not infringing.

If there was an airtight/watertight case proving that they actually copied them, then perhaps so. Nevertheless, given the same words (dictionary), the same grammar, and a brain, any person can, in theory come up with the same sentence. The mere presence of a identical sentence, or even a few of them is not, in and of itself, proof of anything besides the fact that both writers know the same words and grammatical constructs (i.e. the same language) and perhaps that they meant to emulate a know manner of speech from the past. Perhaps if an entire paragraph were identical (i.e. large continuous chunks of identical nature or high similarity) there might be some question. – The argument I am making is not that you can copy some portion of another's work and that such is legal. Rather, it is that such is, at best, difficult to prove, and at worst unprovable. The reality is that it is quite possible, even likely, that it is not copying. – To say that the presence of an identical sentence is always sure, incontrovertible proof of copying (from your work) is to claim that you, solely, own words from the english languages and in particular one such valid construction. I'm sure, beyond any doubt, that that is false.

With regard to Diku and copyright: As a whole, yes I would agree that it may be copyrightable, probably even the specific setting, but when the messages used to relay common concepts are taken alone and out of context, I do not necessarily agree that those separate messages are copyrightable (or should be, if the legal system of some place says they are).

@Hades_Kane
I guess what I'm getting at with Diku is that that there are certain notionally unprotected things they are using. Like medieval weaponry and related concepts (you cannot claim that a halberd of polearm of antiquity is your new and original invention). Some things are arguably generic, period, regardless of whether the law would protect them. After all, law is not truth, it is societal enforcement of things generally agreed upon (either directly or through representatives). Not to mention that the whole thing is almost a D&D steal of sorts.

I simply disagree with you and since we aren't in court it's kind of pointless argument if we cannot come to some kind of agreement. Some things are generic, and if something can be used completely out of context and still make sense it's arguable that is not an inseparable part of the whole. The examples you gave are some of the more air tight ones in this argument. There is absolutely nothing special about that justifies any protection. It is but one way of expressing something in english using words which have been in existence for quite some time. The examples you gave have no "unique flavor" to them of any sort.

The probably of identification of lineage is not really valid. It may empirically have been true or generally be true, but it is by no means a guarantee. Also, all muds bear the obvious lineage of tabletop roleplaying games and the singleplayer video games that followed. They themselves are hardly original in many ways. The other games don't have the words Diku doessimply because they chose to use different words. Just because they didn't use the same words doesn't mean they couldn't have and there was no reason, after the fact, for them to go use other words.

@Tyche
Someday, I will read all of the U.S. copyright law, but not today. I'd debate whether certain things are "original expression" and, to be honest, I believe "original expression" as a concept to be highly suspect.

Quote
In fact, one of the tests for aspects of user interfaces being protected by copyright is that they aren't strictly functional or necessary.

Pray tell, how on earth do you test a statement like that? If you'd care to cite a reference there, I'd appreciate it.

I'm pretty sure that you could prove that networked games were an -obvious- tangent/use of networked computers and therefore hardly patent worthy. Also, software patents are bullshit and regular patents have been made far more reaching than strictly necessary and the system abused to make never ending money. Obviousness is, after all, an important concern (http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/01/whe...)

Quote
I can recall multiple times when someone claiming their mud isn't a Diku had made forum/newsgroup posts that
clearly indicated they either couldn't code their way out of paper bag, or had been running a Diku as few as
a couple weeks before running "their brand new from scratch mud".


That's probably the most valid evidence you provided. There is always the possibility that they simply switched to infringing on someone else's work, though. Not that that's any better.

** P.S. Copyright is flawed, uniqueness is very limited, and "original expression" is suspect as a concept.

P.P.S. Is anyone here not from the US? I'm pretty sure copyright law does vary to some degree outside the us.
30 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 55th comment:
Votes: 0
Nathan said:
What I am saying is that I do not believe they are truly protected and even if the letter of the law might support that they are, that it would likely not hold up in a sane, intelligent court. That said, based on that, I would argue that the person copying is not infringing.

What?! You'd argue that someone could copy their work without infringing based on your personal belief that the court wouldn't uphold the law?!

Nathan said:
If there was an airtight/watertight case proving that they actually copied them, then perhaps so.

That's not how burden of proof works. You only have to prove that your claim is probable.

Nathan said:
Nevertheless, given the same words (dictionary), the same grammar, and a brain, any person can, in theory come up with the same sentence.

Based on that line of reasoning, you could copy anything that didn't make up its own vocabulary.

Nathan said:
I guess what I'm getting at with Diku is that that there are certain notionally unprotected things they are using. Like medieval weaponry and related concepts (you cannot claim that a halberd of polearm of antiquity is your new and original invention).

You appear to be confusing copyright law with patent law. Copyright law does not protect "concepts", nor does it care about the originality of the idea, only its expression. Tyche already explained this to you.

Nathan said:
Someday, I will read all of the U.S. copyright law, but not today.

You should at least read the basics if you're going to start claiming what is and isn't protected.
30 Sep, 2014, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 56th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
You should at least read the basics if you're going to start claiming what is and isn't protected.


What is and isn't protected "in USA". Copyrights laws differ vastly depending on the country you are in.
Most occidental coutries would protect the collection of Diku messages, less so if you only had a few occurences as some messages are pretty basic.
USA are pretty mad about even a single word used, but USA is mad about everything anyway…

Funny from a country that disregarded every copyright laws there were to built its prosperity :)
30 Sep, 2014, quixadhal wrote in the 57th comment:
Votes: 0
So, in KaVir's mind, there should be thousands of ongoing law suits for hack authors who have STOLEN phrases like "It was a dark and stormy night."

After all, that was, at one time, an original work, and it was even a cohesive part of a larger narrative. Why are more publishers not screaming from the hills about people using "He was dead." Clearly, this entire sentence was just LIFTED out of an earlier work, with NO acknowledgement to the original author!
30 Sep, 2014, KaVir wrote in the 58th comment:
Votes: 0
Rarva.Riendf said:
What is and isn't protected "in USA". Copyrights laws differ vastly depending on the country you are in.

There are differences, but the basics are nearly universal, as most countries follow the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

The idea that "given the same words (dictionary), the same grammar, and a brain, any person can, in theory come up with the same sentence" undermines the whole purpose of copyright, because it's basically saying "You can't copyright anything, because someone else might also think of it".

quixadhal said:
So, in KaVir's mind, there should be thousands of ongoing law suits for hack authors who have STOLEN phrases like "It was a dark and stormy night."

Strawman. Aside from the fact that that phrase was published in 1830 by an author who died in 1873 (meaning the novel is now public domain), what I actually said was:

KaVir said:
A single sentence won't usually meet the criteria for creativity, but if (for example) you copy a novel then you'll be judged on the total amount of copying, not on a per-sentence basis. The same with a MUD - if you copy one message it's unlikely to be a copyright infringement, but if you copy dozens of messages it's much more likely that an infringement will be found.
30 Sep, 2014, Hades_Kane wrote in the 59th comment:
Votes: 0
Quote
What I am saying is that I do not believe they are truly protected and even if the letter of the law might support that they are, that it would likely not hold up in a sane, intelligent court. That said, based on that, I would argue that the person copying is not infringing.


If I believe the world is flat, it doesn't make it anymore true, nor does it lend my argument any more credence.
30 Sep, 2014, Nathan wrote in the 60th comment:
Votes: 0
@Kavir
Tell me how do you prove even 50% of a probability that someone copied something? The mere fact that it existed in another work, that they read the other work, and that they used an identical or nearly identical sentence proves absolutely nothing. Those facts, even when put together, do not even imply anything. Anyone can jump to conclusions.

KaVir said:
Rarva.Riendf said:
What is and isn't protected "in USA". Copyrights laws differ vastly depending on the country you are in.

There are differences, but the basics are nearly universal, as most countries follow the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

The idea that "given the same words (dictionary), the same grammar, and a brain, any person can, in theory come up with the same sentence" undermines the whole purpose of copyright, because it's basically saying "You can't copyright anything, because someone else might also think of it".


Consider for a moment that copyright might really be set up on shaky foundations. Why should you be able to copyright something if someone else can think of it? If two people managed to independently write down significantly similar novels, who should be able to benefit from them?

What reason is there, beyond wanting money and liking lawsuits, for copyright to apply to sentences, even a substantial number of them if they are unconnected (perhaps lacking cohesion?)? I'm pretty sure a substantial part of the original intent was simply to keep someone from getting a hold of someone else's book, copying it verbatim and then publishing it and profiting from it and perhaps to prevent them claiming that they authored it. If you know of something that says I can't use the same sentence as someone else without crediting them regardless of whether I am aware that they wrote it or not, do cite such a thing.
40.0/72