[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Open Source TFT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Christopher Fuhrman" <email@example.com>
--- Ty Beard <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
But if we restate every single rule, we go a long ways towards
any unintentional copyright infringement.
No offense Ty, but I think you're treading on thin ice with this
approach. This method is strikingly similar to the students in one of
my C programming classes who tried to avoid plagiarism by changing
every variable name on each line of the software "borrowed" from
someone who had already solved the assignment.
I think you're equating two very different things. One can plagiarize
without infringeing on copyright. Plagiarism is an academic concept, not a
legal one. You plagiarize when you use someone else's ideas or work without
attribution. But you cannot copyright ideas. So I can steal your idea and
not infringe your copyright, though I may well be "guilty" of plagiarism.
Two completely different concepts.
In addition, you specifically cannot copyright the game mechanics. That's
one reason why all of the various D&D and Monopoly knock-offs are out there.
To quote the US Copyright Office, you cannot copyright "[i]deas, procedures,
methods, systems, processes, concepts, principles, discoveries, or
devices..." Of course, some of these things may be patented, but patents
cost a lot of money and last a relatively short time. Metagaming did not
There *is* some ambiguity in the system when trying to distinguish
noncopyrightable ideas from copyrightable expression, but there are
fortunately some on-point cases -- Landsberg v. Scrabble Crossword Game
Players, Inc., (736 F.2d 485 (9th Cir.), which held that the defendant's
"Scrabble Players Handbook" did not infringe the copyright on plaintiff's
draft book "Championship Scrabble Strategy", submitted by
plaintiff to defendant, because, although the lower court found defendant
surreptitiously retained copies of and copied from plaintiff's work, what
was taken was at most uncopyrightable ideas; for example, defendant "had
taken" its "notational system". In other words, the defendants practically
stole the plaintiff's book, yet defendants did not violate plaintiff's
copyright because they re-wrote the rules and strategies.
They argued it wasn't plagiarism because the code was completely
different. Once I explained to the discipline committee that the
logic of the software had not changed, and that the efforts of the
students were merely to mask the similarity, there was no doubt it
was plagiarism (i.e., not their own work). The students failed the
course as per the university rules of plagiarism.
And they should have been -- one commits an act of plagiarism when he steals
another's ideas without attribution. That's what they did and despite their
sophmoric arguments, they were guilty of academic plagiarism.
The rules of plagiarism tend to be explained in detail at each
university, and it is not the same thing as copyright. The two
principles are based on the same ethical issue of protecting the
rights of the original creator.
Different concepts, I think. The law allows me to use the writings of H.G.
Wells' "War of the Worlds" as I see fit without his permission (or the
permission of his heirs) and without attribution. Am I being "immoral" when
I do so? It's perfectly legal, after all.
Depends on the specifics and on which objective moral code we agree to, it
seems to me.
My gut feeling is that by re-doing the entire rule set of TFT with
most of the rules being identical, just paraphrased in the manner you
are suggesting, it would be hard to justify that there was anything
new or different and it wasn't a copyright violation.
Well, I appreciate your concern. But I believe that we can re-write TFT
without violating copyright law. As for plagiarizing, well, I haven't
advocated that we take credit for another's work. Re the moral issues, well,
I have my hands full with pride, anger, lust, etc. I really don't think that
rewriting TFT will be the one immoral act that pushes me over the limit and
sends me to hell. :-)
Bottom line: seems a bit risky to me from this standpoint.
It is risky. Anyone can sue anyone in our legal system. This is why I want
to rewrite *everything*. I personally doubt that this would really be
necessary to avoid infringement, but better safe than sorry.
However, the other tack might be to say that if nobody is interested
in the IP, then what are the risks? Expending energy paraphrasing is
wasteful. You said that penalties are severe for copyright violation,
but I had always thought it would come down to suing for lost
revenues or in the best case, a cease-and-decist order. If we're
talking open-source rules, then there should be no $ involved. You
can't buy the product now, so nobody would be losing money if the
stuff was available (perhaps Ebay could argue about that).
Sadly, copyright law contains a number of medieval statutory penalties which
are independant of any loss to the copyright holder or gain to the
infringer. It is better to simply not infringe than to rely on the court to
"do the right thing".
I'm reminded of the ogre computer game (unix) that was released on
Usenet in the 1980s. Apparently it was not legal - I remember reading
that the author "mistakenly" distributed it to the general public. It
may have even been distributed with some Sun OS distributions - I
know it was on our system when I was in college. Steve Jackson Games
still sells Ogre, so they have an interest in not having stuff
floating around that takes money potentially away from paying their
Well, understand that the Ogre *trademark* was probably infringed when
someone other than SJG created a wargame about a cybertank and called it an
Ogre. This is usually how game companies try to protect themselves. I can
probably re-write the rules to GURPs without infringing on SJ's copyright.
But I cannot then call it "GURPS" (or "GERPS" or "GORPs" or "GRPS") without
infringeing his trademark. We can ignore this problem because the Fantasy
Trip trademark has been legally abandoned and cannot be reinstated. Even so,
I wouldn't want to mislead anyone about what they were getting, so I think
that the term Fantasy Trip should *not* be used.
Today, with Google, one can still get a copy of that ogre software
written in C. But that's technically illegal. If I were to decide to
take that source code and just modify it to a Java version and then
distribute it, it would surely be copyright infringement. Steve
Jackson would probably not be happy.
If you post it on a website or email it, you are technically in violation of
his trademark. I doubt you would be in violation of his copyright, unless
the game reprinted verbatim his rules.
Post to the entire list by writing to email@example.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to firstname.lastname@example.org with the message body