Michael K. Edwards wrote: > The "Game Genie" case (Galoob) was a generic "cheat code" widget that > substituted the odd byte in order to add lives and power-ups and all > that, and was in no sense a substitutable good for the console, the > game cartridge, or a sequel to any particular game. The "game system > emulator" makers who won -- Sony v. Connectix, Sony v. Bleem -- won > because they copied the minimum needed for interoperability with a > content-neutral machine. You cheat -- as in Atari v. Nintendo -- you > lose. > > The bottom line is, whichever piece you're distributing -- a cloned > game engine, a replacement set of data, a set of new levels for the > existing game engine, a complete clone with no literally copied code > or images -- if you're piggy-backing on a specific extant game, you're > infringing its copyright. See, that's where I think you're exaggerating.
For one thing, the Microstar case gives a specific exception regarding new levels, namely those which could work with a different game and be used to tell entirely different stories. "Transformative", presumably. Replacement data which is transformative would presumably be equally protected. The engine is pretty much a purely functional program in many cases; particularly when it functions on arbitrary user-generated data. Do you have case law to the contrary? I'd be interested to see it. Of course, the right to write clones of functional applications was actually legally established, though again I can't find the case name (aargh). (The clone I remember the case being about was *really* *really* close in UI, differing only in the color scheme and trademarks.) >From now on consider the case of a complete clone with no direct copying *only*. > (Not if it's so simple as to be > uncopyrightable; but that doesn't fit the likes of TTD or Civ III.) Also not if the doctrine of merger applies, or if the material is insufficiently creative (too close to factual), and I'd argue strongly that one or the other applies to nearly everything in TTD, barring the artwork and sound. I've played a lot of games in the genre, and they really are all *very* close in many ways. (The biggest competitive difference between sims of this type -- those which do transport-modelling -- is in the detailed numbers and algorithms of the world model/AIs, determining how "balanced" and therefore fun the game is. That basically can't be lifted from proprietary games without looking at the code. The other difference is exactly which things they choose to make user-managed and which they choose to make computer-managed or abstracted, but even those choices are usually very similar.) Also suppose that it differs substantially in the very few remaining arbitrary and creative portions, such as (in TTD) the list of available train engines. If it doesn't, consider that that similarity may be de minimus, or indeed factually based. > The OpenTTD engine is so far from being content-neutral it's not even > funny. :-( > The only thing that it can be used for is playing a tweaked > version of TTD. Tweaked or not, it infringes the TTD copyright. It > doesn't belong in Debian OK... (given what you said about decompiled code and so forth) > -- and neither does freeciv or any other game clone. No. This is wrong. (Well, actually, it may depend on the meaning of clone here. For one thing computer program clones are *never* perfect copies and don't even try to be; normally they try to have a superset of functionality and a very close UI.) There are definite issues with particular clones, but saying "any other game clone" is clearly wrong. Using the same argument you appear to be using, it would seem that Transport Tycoon (and many other games) infringes the copyrights of Railroad Tycoon and SimCity; every flight simulator on the market infringes the copyright of the first one; Sim Theme Park infringes the copyright of Rollercoaster Tycoon; et cetera. The fact that many of these copyrights are owned by rich and intermittently litigious corporations, yet game clones keep being sold openly, indicates that this argument is not taken seriously. Or perhaps I have misconstrued your argument, and you are saying something far narrower? Of course, the right to write clones of functional applications was actually legally established, though again I can't find the case name (aargh). (The clone I remember the case being about was *really* *really* close in UI, differing only in the color scheme and trademarks.) "Clones" really do have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis. -- This space intentionally left blank. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
