IN the case of the dead man the point was that the FANATICS physically assaulted the person they WRONGLY accused of piracy. Its totally unreasonable to expect somebody to spend money on hiring a lawyer to investigate the copyright just to use the game for personal use that’s hasn’t seen any retail shelf in 30 years. These things are not researchable online, they require money, an attorney and a copyright investigator. It turns out in fact, that game, a Atari 2600 video game, written by the dead man had an abandon copyright and the people attacking the person were DEAD WRONG. Baseless accusations from uninformed extremists attacked some kid over a dumb video game….what’s the matter with people?
As my lawyer has advised me there must be a injured party to present a case. So again with Panzerblitz as an example. If you don’t like Panzerblitz available for download by ANYBODY without needing to prove they own a copy then call up Jim Dunnigan and tell him. I’d be interested in his take. Perhaps he’s already made a statement. All this fanaticism of copyright will do if brought to the extreme some seem to want it brought to is, shut down the use of programs like CB. Its really a shame how self destructive the wargame community is. What nobody can answer amongst there screams of thief are. What are the damages? How much money was lost from these people that haven’t made a dime off the Game in over 30 years and the game is no longer sold? What will the judge award? Some guys enjoying a game no longer available for sale and are not presenting the material as their own nor offering for sale as cost the copyright holder what? It’s completely different then reprinting the game and selling copy after copy for profit. The bottom line for me. Is I don’t care what you think about my use of Panzerblitz with a person that doesn’t own the game. Using the word thief is totally out of line. It’s no small wonder why the amount of people putting out wargames has declined. Why subject yourself to that kind of harassment? If you think they are infringing notify the wounded party. That party will decide what action they want to take. This online vigilantism does every bit the damage to creativity that IP infringement does. When an attorney writes letter on the firms letterhead stating there is case being presented then that is REAL. Some Jerk spreading boloney over the net or in person about a company he thinks is violating a copyright is *LIBLE. Baseless accusations against any creator of a game by unqualified vigilantes can fall in this category. Somehow all this supposed law knowledge abruptly falls silent on that tidbit of legal knowledge hmmmm. It’s no small wonder why the amount of people putting out wargames has declined. Why subject yourself to that kind of harassment? Perhaps that’s the intent of some of these people, eliminate the completion with all this mudslinging? Thanks for “contributing" *li⋅bel /ˈlaɪbəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [lahy-buhl] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -beled, -bel⋅ing or (especially British) -belled, -bel⋅ling. –noun 1. Law. a. defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures. b. the act or crime of publishing it. c. a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge. 2. anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents. –verb (used with object) 3. to publish a libel against. 4. to misrepresent damagingly. 5. to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron Walenciak Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 12:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CBML] Re: Copyright As an observer (I did read all of the posts and I am not a lawyer... not that it matters as 10 lawyers will give you 10 different opinions of the meaning of the law anyway <g>), I think the problem is that some people react to things that are said and do blow them all out of proportion. However, statements like "where the company is defunct and therefore has no representation" probably inflame those who read everything in black and white with no shades of grey allowed. I understood what you meant. Others might say that just because the company is defunct or the original copyright holder is dead, there could be another owner of the copyright. I'm thinking that in Command's case, for example, Ty would still actively protect his copyrights, no? John Wayne is dead, but his family continues to very actively protect his image, films, whatever. Even the USPS had to deal with the family just to put his image on a stamp (which is another thing... don't get me started on that <g>... you would think that the honor of being on a stamp would be enough, but I guess there's something about not giving in on any copyright infringement that protects you when the time comes that you really need to protect something.) I'm thinking that if you really want to know, you could do some internet research and figure out if there is a holder of the copyright (and heir, a parent company, whatever). We (game buyers) probably need to educate the powers that be in the pluses that they will get out of allowing these kinds of game aids. Some will not be swayed. Yes, you and your friend can play anyway and nobody is really going to know, but I think what the owners are worried about is thousands of people playing that way and most of them not even buying one copy of the game (ie, copying the rules from someone else or even getting the rules off a website?) It used to be that the counters and map (which were not so easily mass-copied) were the most important parts of the game; electronically, that's been removed; all you need are the rules, which are very easy to copy and distribute.) Oh well... had some thoughts and just felt like "contributing". Regards, Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: Battlegroup To: [email protected] <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> Sent: Saturday, November 22, 2008 12:36 AM Subject: RE: [CBML] Re: Copyright I think the misunderstanding here is some seem to think I am saying "I am going a commit plagiarism catch me if you can." I am not at all saying that. I am saying where the company is defunct and therefore has no representation IE. Nobody willing to or able to complain, and has abandoned copyrights or no longer enforces them. Then I'll play it for FUN including giving a download link to a friend even if he doesn't own the game. You may insist that's illegal it may be but as there is no victim IM going to do it. If there was a victim then that victim will step forward. IN creating game and game products for sale I have a policy that I have based off of advice from peers and confirmed by a lawyer concerning my IP and my artwork. If you think a company's products are not original and in fact your property. Then PROOVE IT in court of law. The problem is these folks that advocate and/or conduct vigilantism, and other things like physical assault on a person, with the excuse they cannot afford legal representation. I know it's expensive. Nonetheless making accusations of plagiarism and theft, or attacking somebody is not LEGAL. Without PROOF and presenting a case in a court of law, calling a company or person(s) thieves and plagiarists is LIABLE, regardless of how much you think you know of the laws. You can be sued for Liable as much as you can for copyright infringement. From: [email protected] <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Battlegroup Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 9:24 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> Subject: RE: [CBML] Re: Copyright 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:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Daniel W. Johnson Sent: Friday, November 21, 2008 7:47 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:CyberBoardML%40yahoogroups.com> 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> <mailto:panoptes%40iquest.net> <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] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
