Oolite Bulletins

Ahruman wrote:

Selezen wrote:

Fact: You can't copyright a concept.

This, however, is not the least bit useful if things actually get serious. Witness the numerous Tetris clones that have been shut down by The Tetris Company..

Interesting.. because the Wikipedia article you linked to says

TTC had a moment of fame in the late 90s when it tried to get every freeware and shareware version of Tetris off the market by sending out cease-and-desist letters claiming both trademark and copyright infringement. Creators of Tetris clones determined that the company has no valid legal basis to claim rights to any tetromino game that does not infringe on the Tetris name trademark, since copyright "look-and-feel" suits have not stood up in court in the past (Lotus v. Borland), and because the letters made no patent claims.

This would seem to indicate that The Tetris Company actually failed in its attempts to shut the clones down...

Diziet Sma wrote:

This would seem to indicate that The Tetris Company actually failed in its attempts to shut the clones down...

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2008/08/tetris-clone-re/

They managed with at least one

Tris‘ creator Noah Witherspoon writes on his blog that because of his current situation — he’s a student with no money — he does not "have the time, energy, or resources to fight this battle right now," and so has agreed to pull the game.

Yeah you see that's the killer. It's not the righteousness of the cause or even the good odds of winning, but the will to fight.

It's like a game of Poker, see or fold. When the writs start flying, most people (even ones that have invested our level of time and energy in a project) will fold, or archive and take it to a neutral server. China looks pretty good, just don't slag off their human rights record and your golden.

To clarify my position being an old scout I have a soft spot for the motto "be prepared." I see no harm in running a hypothetical brain storming session on the subject. At the very least it warms people the possibility of a worst case scenario.

Think of it like tracking asteroids. Chances are they'll all miss the earth in your life time. So why are we bothering? Just in case, that's why.

Thanks ClymAngus, that was pretty much what I was going to add, though you said it better, I think..

With regard to our hypothetical legal bunfight, it occurs to me that it may be worth investigating whether the Electronic Frontier Foundation or maybe even the Free Software Foundation would be willing to assist in such a case. They both maintain fighting funds and trained pit vipers lawyers to battle things like IP and patent issues, (among other things, such as fighting RIAA) and may well be interested in a case like this.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Thanks ClymAngus, that was pretty much what I was going to add, though you said it better, I think..

With regard to our hypothetical legal bunfight, it occurs to me that it may be worth investigating whether the Electronic Frontier Foundation or maybe even the Free Software Foundation would be willing to assist in such a case. They both maintain fighting funds and trained pit vipers lawyers to battle things like IP and patent issues, (among other things, such as fighting RIAA) and may well be interested in a case like this.

An interesting possibility, and well worth a review. Finally, constructivism. Of course we had to work our way through bereavement, denial, anger and apathy to get there, but psychologically I think we're finally entering the right state of mind to investigate this topic.

Diziet Sma wrote:

Ahruman wrote:

Selezen wrote:

Fact: You can't copyright a concept.

This, however, is not the least bit useful if things actually get serious. Witness the numerous Tetris clones that have been shut down by The Tetris Company..

Interesting.. because the Wikipedia article you linked to […] would seem to indicate that The Tetris Company actually failed in its attempts to shut the clones down...

Yes. In that, it’s wrong.

Diziet Sma wrote:

With regard to our hypothetical legal bunfight, it occurs to me that it may be worth investigating whether the Electronic Frontier Foundation or maybe even the Free Software Foundation would be willing to assist in such a case. They both maintain fighting funds and trained pit vipers lawyers to battle things like IP and patent issues, (among other things, such as fighting RIAA) and may well be interested in a case like this.

The EFF and FSF have too much real work to do to bother them with hypotheticals. :-)

There's small side issue that might be worth thinking about, the ownership of the background details.

When you look at the orginal games, all the background details such as the GCW, witchspace, all the tech' details of the ships, etc, came from the manual and novella. Mr B&B own the information that is part of the code: ship equipment and planet names. I believe that they don't own the information contained within the documentation since that was part of the package that Acornsoft added to up-sell the game.

One could suppose, that Mr Braben didn't legally own the back-story packaged with the game. It would explain why he rebooted history in history in the sequels. All the Acornsoft game properties were sold to Superior Software back in the mid 90's. Superior is still going strong under the label Superior Interactive, trading in remakes in their old titles.

I wouldn't even begin to wonder what extra issues this factor adds.

KZ9999 wrote:

There's small side issue that might be worth thinking about, the ownership of the background details.

When you look at the orginal games, all the background details such as the GCW, witchspace, all the tech' details of the ships, etc, came from the manual and novella. Mr B&B own the information that is part of the code: ship equipment and planet names. I believe that they don't own the information contained within the documentation since that was part of the package that Acornsoft added to up-sell the game.

One could suppose, that Mr Braben didn't legally own the back-story packaged with the game. It would explain why he rebooted history in history in the sequels. All the Acornsoft game properties were sold to Superior Software back in the mid 90's. Superior is still going strong under the label Superior Interactive, trading in remakes in their old titles.

I wouldn't even begin to wonder what extra issues this factor adds.

It means that we'd have to worry about at least Robert Holdstock's lawyers too! Since words like "Remlok" are entirely of his creation - although he was paid 17.5p per copy of the game sold although I can't remember from his interview if that was just for DW or the detailing he added to the manual.

Im not sure but I seem to remember my copy of the novella stated on the back that copyright belonged to acornsoft, is it possible that Holdstock sold all his rights to acornsoft? or is it the norm for (C) messages to be the publisher not the author? I have to confess Ive never really paid much attention to who owns what rights in books, and as I'm at work I don't have access to any fiction works to check...

Holdstock has already been discussed in this thread, about 10 or so posts above.

I still think that unless anyone is a lawyer, or has contacted one, or has discussed any of this with any of the relevant players (Holdstock, B&B or anyone else) then this is all just hot air and speculation.

I concur - when it comes to discussions on this theme I always get a slightly uncomfortable feeling - remembering that we exist because somebody is ignoring us (irrespective of whether we have a "right" to do so or not)

Cmdr James wrote:

Holdstock has already been discussed in this thread, about 10 or so posts above.

I still think that unless anyone is a lawyer, or has contacted one, or has discussed any of this with any of the relevant players (Holdstock, B&B or anyone else) then this is all just hot air and speculation.

I agree with that completely, my own comments werent intended to dispute the infringment potential of our actions just a wandering who's lawyers it would be that would be in contact should some one wake the sleeping dog.

I should imagine that if someone were to contact the good Misters B&B that they could give both a statement on their own position, and give much more helpful advice on who actually owns the relevant rights.

I would strongly advise that noone do this though. As you say, sleeping dogs and all that

Whilst on the subject of copyright speculation etc, and in the mood of kicking sleeping dogs etc

Does Ian Bell still have any rights to making an elite sequel himself if he desired?

I know there was some sort of deal worked out when Ian wasnt keen on finishing the development of frontier, but Im not sure if he surrendered any right to work on a sequel or if it was just about royalties...

As far as I know hes been back in the gaming business for a while now, doing racing sims - I think its the same Ian Bell?

IIRC Ian Bell actually sold his rights to Elite to some other bloke. That's the main reason why Frontier couldn't offer Elite for download as shareware or similar from their site - they can't track the current owner down.