On Sat, 2005-08-27 at 13:07 -0700, Sean Kellogg wrote: > Sure, there is an underlying mathmatical formula. And you are free to use > any > mathmatical formula to create charts to your heart's content. But the D&D > people chose a particular formula and have created tangible works of > authorship with that formula. When you use their underlying formula to > create your own new tables, you are copying their expression.
My point is not that you can "cheat" copyright by skipping through mathematics, but that the game mechanics - the rules themselves - are not expressive enough. I think there is a distinction between the rules and the description of the rules. One can describe how the rules work and can copyright that description or expression, but can one copyright the underlying concepts and ideas the rules themselves? In the same way that lists of items for recipes are not copyrightable, one could similarly argue that tables of numbers are not copyrightable either. I think what you are trying to say is that, for example, the combination of the idea of "experience progression" (gain points to gain levels and extra powers) and the tables is a substantial or original expression. I would argue not. I also think this argument is centering around whether it is possible, through the existing law, to copyright game mechanics, and not so much on whether it is right to do so. As we have seen from recent legal shenanigans, it's possible to do lots of things with law in certain territories as long as you have enough money. I would say, it does not necessarily follow that it is right to do so. > You're absolutely right. Microsoft and IBM violate eachother's patents all > the time, but I assure you they both believe patents cover software. Just > because industry players violate eachother's IP does not mean the industry > does not believe the IP exists. Lots of reasons not to sue... and a bit one > is the chance the court may totally disagree with the argument and end IP on > games all togehter. But for the record, WoTC's market share in the game > industry is of good size, and when you remember they are actually owned by > Hasbro, it is nearly 80% of the game market. I'm not really talking about big companies: roleplaying is a pretty small industry, if you can call it an industry. It's made up of a couple of big companies and lots and lots of little companies. Neither am I talking about violating patents: I don't think a patent for game mechanics would stand up, although WotC have certainly tried. I don't think one could simply characterize the general opinion of the "industry" in that way. We know WotC consider game mechanics copyrightable, but I would pause to state that the rest of the "industry" would consider it so. I would also note how undemocratic it is that those companies with the highest market share would seem to be able to dictate interpretation of the law. IANAL but I hope the law doesn't always work that way, certainly for the sake of smaller companies and groups like the Debian Group, and free software in general. Certainly in Europe, despite the efforts of various market leaders, we are still fortunate enough not to have software patents, yet. > They are a list of numbers combinded with extensive > instructions (wow, extensive... I've been learning them again in preperation > for starting a campaing... the stuff is as complicated as case law). One > migth even call it "substantial literary expression in the form of > explanation or directions." I would agree the extensive instructions are copyrightable, but the disagreement would center on whether the underlying concepts and ideas (i.e. the actual mechanics) are copyrightable. Kind regards... -- Ricardo Gladwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
