a fine line?

[Takkar Tekekak]

I'm in a questionative mood the other day as I wandered town and I got to thinking about copyright laws. The idea of copyright laws are that the creator of an idea has the entitlement to profits produced by the idea pattented by him/her eg:

I'm gonna make a game about people who have lots of pets that we love, make them fight each other and then say we know nohting about... i'll call it Pokemon.

Copyright law gives the creator of the game (and the game designers etc.) full rights over the game. so they get to choose the price the game will be sold at etc. but when does copyright law go too far?

"Alright, I thought of this game, I made this game and if it weren't for me it wouldn't exist. so I get the right to say that only people in america can play it for the first three months... I can say the game will cost £40 making me (once the liscence fees are paid and designer saleries etc.) roughly £34 a game after shipping and production costs. giving me a salary of about £130k a year for at least three years..."

In that case...

you made this game, I- using a cartridge writer- have made my own game. Why cant I sell it? because of copyright laws. because it is your idea you get "full" rights to it. and I DO agree with it, but there comes a certain point when they go too far.

people who (still using pokemon for this argument) make digimon have to dodge around certain aspects of their games now (even if they also had their original idea, they can't do it because somebody else said it first) Spinnoffs and parodies can get sued if they don't say things like "these r not v characters. and if u fink they luk like em it jus a coincidence!" and that because they are the only people allowed to make the game they will charge stupid prices, and then you get a message during installation or startup "visit the www.richbastard.com website and get upgrades for the game- you paid for the game, but not enough..."

What do you all think the creators of games should have rights to? and when do they abuse those rights?

[LGM]

Are you trying to justify pirating roms?

[BOYD1981]

i think copyrights do go too far, especially when people patent phrases or a word (you're not allowed to print a t-shirt that says FUCK on the front because FCUK own those letters no matter what order they appear), i think unless you invent the word yourself then you have no right copyrighting it, also i'm not entirely sure that companies have the right to shut down mod projects that are based on their games UNLESS they use copyrighted material, they mostly just make legal threats, whereas in actual fact they're just afraid that you'll do a better job than them, personally i totally ignore copyrights, i'll pirate music, movies, games and do anything else i can to fight the system, and if it's from a company like EA then i'll pirate two copies of it, hell they tell you to "Challenge Everything", i'm challenging piracy laws!

[MrColossal]

Copyright isn't just about money. If I copyright a character I'm not doing it so I can print T-Shirts and make money off of it. I'm doing it so I have full legal control of what happens to that character. So someone can't take the character and do things with it that I don't want done.

I can't just go out and make and sell a Sam and Max game because it legally isn't my property. Steve Purcell owns them lock stock and barrel, 100%. Did he copyright them cause he's greedy and wants the money money money? I highly doubt that was his only reason. I'm not going to say that he didn't want to make money off of them but I'm sure what he originally wanted was complete control over them as characters.

I really think this is something you have to experience in order to understand why it might be important. If you have an idea and then someone craps out an idea JUST like yours so they can try and ride the wave of your popularity, aren't you going to be upset? If you're thinking something like "No I wouldn't." or "It would force me to work harder." or something then I just can't believe you. If there is something you have put blood sweat and tears into and then someone else just rips it off, you're not going to fight for it?

If I copyright a character or story or anything, I want complete control and ownership over every aspect of that story,Ã,  lock stock and barrel, 100%.

LGM: No he's trying to justify pirating MP3s, QUICK convert them to OGG and you're safe!

Boyd: I highly doubt that a company shuts down a mod project because they are afraid that the mod will be better than their game. From what I understand you have to actively protect your copyright, you can't pick and choose. If one project is infringing on your copyright then you have to stop it. By law. You can't just let everything slide and attack any old project. I'm sure the majority of cease and desist orders that go out don't even get to the President of the company. Legal just mails them out because 1. That's their job and 2. It's the law.

Also, how in the world does pirating a game fight the system? Why don't you become a lawyer and actually fight the system? Or just admit that the reason you pirate is the same reason I pirate. I'm too lazy to get a higher paying job and I'm too impatient to save up and a majority of the time I'm just a jerk who steals things because I can. Don't pretend you're a freedom fighter sticking it to the man.

Eric

[DGunpluggered]

No, LGM, he's not justifying pirating roms.

Takkar, firstly, although patents and copyrights are both covered under intellectual property, they are different in that they're each covered by different sections of the law (UK Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988). Thus, you must think of patents and copyrights as two different things. Patents cover ideas, copyright covers expressions of ideas.

The only thing I can find in regards to patents for Pokemon was designs patents for each of the characters. This is to protect their look so people don't go selling dodgy pokemon merchendise at your local discount store, even though they still do. However, I found this information from an iffy source and it doesn't say which country it applies. I'm guessing the US.

As for actually patenting the game, I don't know if they can in the UK. I checked the UK patent office and they say "An invention is not patentable if it is... the presentation of information, or a computer program."

http://www.patent.gov.uk/patent/whatis/definition.htm

As the site says, most patents are inventions with new functional aspects. For example, Nintendo patented the hand-held architecture for the GBA system earlier this year. This means that rival companies can't produce hand-held systems that use a GBA emulator. And this has ramifications for PC emulators too. But once again, this is a US example.

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2004Mar/bga20040316024286.htm

But as for patenting the actual game, no, I don't think so.

Copyright is a different matter. While you can't create a game with material from Pokemon (such as ripped graphics or similar pokemon characters), you can create a similar game with your own original material (material not similar to the original). For example, look at the numerous 3D shooters from the 90s. Quake, Rise of the Triad, Duke Nukem 3D, Blood -- all are based on the same idea yet all use their own original material. Same with Pokemon and Digimon. Although you say Digimon have to dodge certain aspects of their games, such as similar characters, they still have the right to develop their own game.

A recent example to show you what I mean are the numerous Tetris copyright infringements. The Tetris Company currently owns the copyright to the Tetris game worldwide, which means people can't legally make clones of it, unless such clones differ in some dramatic way. And it's pretty hard to differ on the graphics since they're blocks. So, to make a legal clone, you have to differ the gameplay in some way. But then it's not Tetris anymore, isn't it?

Pokemon is different, since it's very easy to differ with graphics, music, and gameplay. However, if you do get sued by Nintendo, just make sure to get a good lawyer.

[LGM]

Hey, I wasn't accusing him of anything, I was just wondering what point he was trying to ask. I'd say something useful, but Eric and DG have already said it..

Oh, and drop the Mp3 crap, please.  You already know where I stand, and any further mockery isn't necessary.

[BOYD1981]

it shouldn't be possible to copyright an idea because there is no such thing as a unique thought, just look at the invention of the telephone for example, or the television, or even the computer, in the long run i suppose copyrights are a good idea, but only if they're done properly (ie people not just sticking © or â,,¢ or just saying it's copyrighted), but i'll stand by my argument that you can not copyright a word, phrase or even a letter.
also, if i made a commercial game then yeh, i probably would copyright it, but only to stop people taking credit for the original work and not to stop them making fan based games or mods because i appreciate my fans, whereas a lot of these big companies that shut down mod projects don't, they just appreciate their own greed.
so to sum it up, copyrighting is both a good and bad thing which seems to work like this: if it works in your favour then it's a good thing, if it doesn't work in your favour then it's a bad thing, or something...

[DGunpluggered]

I've already said you can't copyright an idea. You can patent them though. The telephone was one example of an invention that was patented. However, from what I read, patents (in the US) last for 20 years and can't be renewed (US residents, is this correct? This is what I understand it to be).

As for intellectual property of words, I think you're thinking of trademarks, BOYD, which are once again different from copyrights. You can't copyright a word, yes, but you can trademark it. For example, no one else can sell a product with the name "Coke" or "Pokemon", because the names are trademarked.

Also, I disagree with the "if it works in your favour it's a good thing" rationale. See I used to have this hobby where I'd beat up little kids and steal their delicious lollies. Sure, it worked in my favour, cause I didn't have to pay for Chuppa Chups for a long time. That is, until the police busted me for child abuse. Now I'm typing this from a jail cell. And there's a big, creepy guy in the bunk bed opposite me who told me he wants to "steal my delicious lollies", whatever that means.

[Moox]

I had a registered copyright at one time till I sold it to a client. I dont care how many people thought of the same thing, but It was mine. I use the simple thought that if the system is in place, abide by it untill its goes overboard. Patents on the otherhand.. I believe they can be renewed here in the us. Not certain tho. I have an idea I considered patenting. Just have to do some research to see if has been done and to make a working prototype.

[MrColossal]

LGM, I was really just kidding around... I make fun of AGA not because I hate him but because it's just making jokes.

Spoiler

But the reason you should get shit for it is because you don't have a stance. You just have an arbitrary rule you created to justify stealing. I steal because I'm lazy, mean, dumb and don't have the patience to save up for things I want NOW NOW NOW. What's so wrong about coming to terms with that? Unless it's free, music isn't and shouldn't be free just like computer programs. Saying that stealing and then profiting monetarily from that theft is wrong but stealing and profiting in another way [the feel good tunes of music] isn't is contradictory. Tons of work goes into music just like tons of work goes into making a computer program.

[close]

But DG, patents can be renewed but I think it's copyrights that can't. Mickey Mouse being the example. Mickey should be public domain but Disney Corp is quite the shift sally.

I have a patent on a little fire fighting invention I made and I highly doubt it can't be renewed.

BOYD: And what if, by law, you had to shut down the mod projects otherwise lose your copyright and also lose your control and everyone takes credit for your original work? [and really, if there are no original thoughts there can't be anything original except finger prints and snowflakes.]

p.s. I hate AGA

[DennisDeYoung]

Speaking of fine lines.......

It appears the XIERRA site, and Quest For Orgy have been shutdown by Vivendi/Sierra. 

Upon further investigation as to why TIERRA can make their games it appears they have permmission to do so, under license, as long as later release remove the TIERRA name.

I wonder whether they are protecting the SIERRA brand name, or the product.

Anyway, the reason AGDI has "The talent and the motivation" to remake the games is they have permission!!!!!

[BOYD1981]

all snowflakes are the same, they're just masters of disguise...

[DGunpluggered]

But DG, patents can be renewed but I think it's copyrights that can't. Mickey Mouse being the example. Mickey should be public domain but Disney Corp is quite the shift sally.

I have a patent on a little fire fighting invention I made and I highly doubt it can't be renewed.

I looked it up on the US patent website and found the following:

"After the patent has expired anyone may make, use, offer for sale, or sell or import the invention without permission of the patentee, provided that matter covered by other unexpired patents is not used. The terms may be extended for certain pharmaceuticals and for certain circumstances as provided by law."

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/doc/general/index.html#nature

[Ali]

you made this game, I- using a cartridge writer- have made my own game. Why cant I sell it? because of copyright laws.

This is an interesting topic, but I'm afraid I don't understand this. Why can't your game made with a cartridge writer be sold?

And what exactly is a cartridge writer?

[shbaz]

Trademarks can be renewed indefinately, copyrights have a limit depending on the medium that is usually about enough to cover the lifetime of the person who registered the copyright.

After 20 years your patent is public domain, unrenewable. I wasn't aware of any exceptions, and it's weird that pharmaceuticals would be.. guess I didn't do enough reading.

[Fuzzpilz]

Actually, under US law copyrights last 70 years after the author's death, or up to 95 for copyrights owned by corporations. In the EU, it's also 70 years after the author's death, or 50 for performances. Don't know about elsewhere.

[Ize]

It's like those cool Monkey Island fan games that some people really liked, of course before the formerly glorious Luca$$arts came and told the guy he shouldn't make 'em or distribute them.
TRhe company could have helped him with resources and maybe set up a Luca$ fan game comunity, where you could post fangames under luca$$arts' domain, making the games a whole universe full of enjoyable possiblities, rather than just seeing it as a disposable money-maker.

[YOke]

But, as somebody pointed out before. If LucasArts don't actively protect their copyright, including shutting down fan-games, they loose their copyright. Then Electronic Arts or whoever can start making commercial Monkey Island games, earning money on a brand they didn't build. I agree that it sucks that free fan-games are being shut down, but I can understand LucasArts' (or any other gaming company's) position.

[Fuzzpilz]

Fan games are a substantial copyright question if and only if actual material from the original games is used - ripped sprites, music etc. Also, you're thinking of trademarks. Copyright law doesn't work that way - if you let A get away with using your material, that only means you're letting A use your material, nothing more and nothing less. You may lose your right to sue A over it (laches and all that), but if B then uses your material without your permission, you still have every right to go after them.

When fan projects are stopped, it's usually because the owner's lawyers see them as a potential dilution of their trademarks (that's what you were referring to, I assume). I'm not sure how justified that position is, but it's very common.

[DGunpluggered]

Aye, fan games are usually a big no-no when it comes to copyright.

Parody games in the US, however, are protected to a degree under fair use. And there's a big distinction between a fan game and a parody game.