From: "woodelf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Monday, April 12, 2004 8:45 AM woodelf wrote:
Keep in mind that i agree with you. In fact, i think that some elements of IP that currently can apparently be owned also shouldn't be ownable. However, your argument isn't very strong, because it seems to proceed from the premise that what is IP (vice non-ownable ideas) is in some way inherent, or self-evident. This is simply not the case: copyright and patent are legal constructs, and taking the standards of IP from 20 yrs ago (as you appear to be doing) is no more obvious or sensible than taking those of today, 20 yrs from now, or 250yrs ago. IP, like any other legal construct, can evolve and change.
Quite so, the law changes and IP law has been put under great stress the last 10 years or so. However I do not in fact refer to "old" standards; plots, concepts, names are not copyrightable in Sweden, in our present time, and they probably will not in the future.
Nor are they copyrightable in the US. This doesn't invalidate the OGL in the slightest. It's a CONTRACT. You *voluntarily* waive some rights in order to get the benefits. If you don't think the tradeoff is worth it, don't use the OGL.
Games for example have a weaker protection in Europe as compared to the US. Game rules can not be patented, nor can they be copyrighted as such. The higher demand of originality also makes a lot of game rule descriptions non-copyrightable.
This is ALSO true in the US.
Peter, you need to research US copyright law more before you start saying the OGL is void in Europe. Given most of what your describing is identical between US and European law -- and given the nature of the Berne convention -- I think you're incorrect in your assumption the OGL is not valid under European law.
_______________________________________________ Ogf-l mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
