This is a very long thread, and I have no intention of reading all of it. While I might be tempted to react to some of the things Daniel has said here, I am not about to single him out or even try to characterize his position.
The posts I have read seem to knot up a number of key ideas, with the result of no one finding any understanding, much less agreement, but everyone becoming more and more frustrated. Usually that's a clear signal to call a time out and agree on what you're arguing about. The big questions are who has the right to do what, and what exactly does a license grant you. You have the original holder of the copyright. They have the right to exercise their rights or assign their rights to another party. If it's a person, those rights might very well pass to their estate when they die. The holder of a copyright has the right to control the creation, distribution, presentation etc. of "derivative works" based on their intellectual property. While you might think that that only includes the cardboard box and its contents, the copyright covers the intellectual property itself. Creating a gamebox, vassal mod, etc is very definitely creating a derivative work. Hell, if you can dream up a way of presenting Richtofens War as an epic poem, you'll have created a derivative work. (yes, there's "fair use", etc, but no functioning implementation could stay within those bounds) Control means just that - you can specify where, when, how and even *if* derivative works are created. >From there, there's two lines of misconceptions - 1) I own a copy of the game, so it's OK, right? The answer is neither an unqualified yes or no. The copyright holder gets to decide - it's a presentation of their IP, after all. They have the right to decide if the license they grant you in one medium (cardboard) extents to another medium (online). A number of game companies are very gracious about allowing various forms of online play, and some are not. They are all exercising their rights, and still maintain control. 2) If the copyright holder is in no position to enforce (as apposed to exercise or assert) their rights, then it's OK... Is stealing candy from a baby not really stealing? 'nuf said. --- In [email protected], "Battlegroup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The man is DEAD NO lawsuit if nobody is affected. IN order to get sued > you must have somebody FILE a SUIT. Not going to happen to with Dead man I > doubt he is going to be to upset either. People take this TOO FAR. > > > > By these hardliners definitions pretty much everything for Cyberboard and > VASSAL is illegal in some way. Then why get involved? And why haven't > companies being infringed filling a suit? It's not worth it most of the > time. Now be holier then thou all you want. But I am going to play a 30 > year old game without a 30 year receipt for the game, with a friend > regardless of who thinks it's illegal, knowing full well I am not going to > sued for it. > > > > Like I say I have had people attack a product of mine based on their false > ideas of law. And commit a determined smear campaign against my company. > I've seen it happen to others. If you represent the company and you feel > there is a cause for litigation ,go for it. If not, let that company decide > how they want defend THEIR property not YOURS. That's the biggest problem I > have here. These self appointed crusaders that claim they know law but have > no law degree and have no employment with the company the claim is being > infringed upon. People can fight their own battles. > > > > I am completely for a company protecting its IP.. All these pseudo lawyers > should make themselves familiar with another legal term..LIABLE. If you > believe there is illegal activity you might want to be ready to back it up > in court. Maybe, just maybe one of these smaller guys making their own > products actually will have enough money to fight back against false > accusation and smear campaigns. > > > > IP infringement can contribute to ruining the hobby. But so can these > crusaders attempting to sway public opinion online or in real world, against > somebody's own products cause they think they know the law. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Daniel W. Johnson > Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:47 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: [CBML] Re: Copyright > > > > At 18:59 -0600 2008-11-21, Battlegroup wrote: > >The company is gone the write of the code is dead. There is nobody left. > >Who's going to do what? > > "Don't get caught" is not the Eleventh Commandment. > > "I don't know the name of the owner" does not excuse theft. > -- > Daniel W. Johnson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:panoptes%40iquest.net> > http://members.iquest.net/~panoptes/ > 039 53 36 N / 086 11 55 W > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >
