Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
Hey, I am making Debian packages of openttd and am thinking of getting them uploaded into Debian. Though it is licensed under GPL, I was wondering in what section it belongs. There are two reasons for this. First, openttd is non-working on itself, it needs the user to supply it with data files from the original ttd game (sounds and graphics). Secondly, I am not entirely sure where openttd originated from. I believe it was based on a disassembly or decompile of the original ttd game. I am not entirely sure how this holds up under, for example, US copyright law. The initial version of openttd was created in Finland, where this is supposed to be perfectly legal. Your opinions? Gr. Matthijs Kooijman -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/15/05, Matthijs Kooijman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am making Debian packages of openttd and am thinking of getting them > uploaded into Debian. Though it is licensed under GPL, I was wondering in what > section it belongs. > There are two reasons for this. > > First, openttd is non-working on itself, it needs the user to supply it with > data files from the original ttd game (sounds and graphics). > Secondly, I am not entirely sure where openttd originated from. I believe it > was based on a disassembly or decompile of the original ttd game. I am not > entirely sure how this holds up under, for example, US copyright law. The > initial version of openttd was created in Finland, where this is supposed to > be perfectly legal. The requirement for content from the original game means that it should probably go in contrib. I wouldn't worry too much about the inspirations and motivations behind the implementation. In general, the gaming industry rather routinely borrows concepts and techniques from each other. From their point of view, this is probably a legitimate implementation. Of course, if you have any serious doubts about that you can contact the original game's publisher and ask them. Since, at least currently, you have to have a legal copy of the game to play openttd legally, they're not likely to object. Also, unless openttd includes design features which are clearly unique content, the original publishers probably won't have any legal grounds to object. [But you're not really described the situation enough to know if that could be an issue.] I wouldn't worry too much about the intent of the programs' requirement for game content constituting a GPL violation. From what you say, it's pretty clear that the copyright holders on the GPL content intend for it to be used this way -- they appear to think that the game content is not a part of the program. However, if you have any serious doubts, you should cntact the authors of openttdc and get clarification from them. In other words, the core of openttd has roughly the same status as documentation on the inner workings of the original game. But it's clearly been fleshed out quite a bit from that, with the intent of actually running against the original game data. So it's probably correct to put the game in contrib. But I'm just going from your brief writeup here, I've not attempted to figure out if there are any serious creative content issues that you've not described. If you have any doubts about those, I'd recommend you contact the people who would have copyrights on that content. Good luck, -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
I wrote: > Also, unless openttd includes design features which are clearly unique > content, the original publishers probably won't have any legal grounds I meant, and should have said "... which are clearly unique content of the publishers of the original game..." Obviously, openttd's authors have a right to publish whatever unique content they came up with. -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
> The requirement for content from the original game means that it > should probably go in contrib. That is what I thought too, yes. > Of course, if you > have any serious doubts about that you can contact the original > game's publisher and ask them. This has been tried by several people without too much succes. Since the rights to the game have transfered a few times due to company takeovers and other stuffs, it is not really clear who owns the game right now... The original author (Chris Sawyer) does not seem to respond either. > Since, at least currently, you have > to have a legal copy of the game to play openttd legally, they're not > likely to object. Though this might change with in a future version, this will still hold for some time, yes. > Also, unless openttd includes design features which are clearly unique > content, the original publishers probably won't have any legal grounds > to object. [But you're not really described the situation enough to know > if that could be an issue.] As far as I can see, there are not really any ground breaking principles in the game that could pose a problem. So, I'll put it in contrib then. Thanks, Matthijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v. FormGen. In general, Debian should not be distributing game clones, in main, in contrib, or anywhere else. The fact that copyright holders rarely bother to pursue legal action against half-assed clones of obsolete games does not mean that they are legitimate in the eyes of the law. Cheers, - Michael
RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd
> infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction
> that recognizes the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty
> much any jurisdiction that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v.
> FormGen.
I don't recall if 17USC117 makes any mention of it, but functional
cloning of any program is protected by Brazilian Computer Programs
Law in art.6, III (''It does not constitute infringement on the
computer program author's rights: [...] III - the occurrence of a
program similar to other, preexistent, when the similarity is by
force of the functional application characteristics _or_ of the
observance of technical or normative regulations _or_ limitation of
alternative form for its expression'' -- underlines and terrible
English translation are mine).
>
> In general, Debian should not be distributing game clones, in
> main, in contrib, or anywhere else. The fact that copyright
> holders rarely bother to pursue legal action against half-assed
> clones of obsolete games does not mean that they are legitimate in
> the eyes of the law.
The mise en scene infringement would only be in the case of the
maps and scenery of the game, which, in casu, won't be distributed
by Debian. Anyway, you are quite right that game clones are not
completely legitimate in principle, exactly because they would
*normally* come with the infringing sprites, maps, sceneries, etc.
>
> Cheers,
> - Michael
--
HTH
Massa
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes > the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes > the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction > that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v. FormGen. There are always questions, of course. And, I do think you have a pretty strong point here, in the sense that this can be a very real issue. But, the scenes are not a part of openttd. They are the non-free component which forces openttd into contrib. > In general, Debian should not be distributing game clones, in main, in > contrib, or anywhere else. The fact that copyright holders rarely > bother to pursue legal action against half-assed clones of obsolete > games does not mean that they are legitimate in the eyes of the law. I agree with your second sentence. I'm just not sure that your general statement from your first sentence applies here. The question is: does openttd contain copyrighted material from Transport Tycoon? I don't have the answer to that question, and it sounds like the copyright holders are not currently interested in stating their opinion. That leaves us with "due diligence" -- whatever that means in this context. I don't think a blanket prohibition on clone software (or even game clone software) will serve us very well. Sometimes it's going to be a problem, sometimes it's not. The times it's going to be a problem is when the clone software copies a tangible expression of creative content from the original work. We have not yet identified any such elements which are relevant to openttd. -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd infringes > > the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction that recognizes > > the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty much any jurisdiction > > that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v. FormGen. > > There are always questions, of course. And, I do think you > have a pretty strong point here, in the sense that this can be > a very real issue. > > But, the scenes are not a part of openttd. They are the non-free > component which forces openttd into contrib. No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the original work and siphon off the commercial potential of it and/or of derivative works. > > In general, Debian should not be distributing game clones, in main, in > > contrib, or anywhere else. The fact that copyright holders rarely > > bother to pursue legal action against half-assed clones of obsolete > > games does not mean that they are legitimate in the eyes of the law. > > I agree with your second sentence. I'm just not sure that your > general statement from your first sentence applies here. > > The question is: does openttd contain copyrighted material from > Transport Tycoon? If you are talking about literal copying, you are asking the wrong question. The question is, does a clone of a specific game infringe its copyright? And the answer is Yes. A game clone -- as opposed to a new work in the same genre, with rules, tiles, etc. that are convincingly independently developed insofar as they are not scenes a faire -- always infringes the copyright on the original (assuming that the original is not old enough for its copyright to have expired, and was not published without copyright notice prior to 1976). > I don't have the answer to that question, and it sounds like the > copyright holders are not currently interested in stating their > opinion. > > That leaves us with "due diligence" -- whatever that means in this > context. It means reading the law and getting a clue. I refer you again to Micro Star v. FormGen. > I don't think a blanket prohibition on clone software (or even > game clone software) will serve us very well. Sometimes it's > going to be a problem, sometimes it's not. The times it's > going to be a problem is when the clone software copies > a tangible expression of creative content from the original > work. > > We have not yet identified any such elements which are > relevant to openttd. If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have no difficulty identifying those elements. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The > "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the > creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the > original work and siphon off the commercial potential of it and/or of > derivative works. But the only people who can own a copy of this "sequel" are people that own a legitimate copy of the game. So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the commercial potential" work in this case? > If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have > conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have > no difficulty identifying those elements. This ad hominem approach of yours is getting annoying. You've presented cases which show that you do not believe in your own assertions about what derivative works mean. Specifically, you've claimed that derivative works are disjoint from collecitive works and anthologies, but you've also stated that the same work can be both a derivative work and an anthology. Until you can present a consistent view of your own beliefs, I cannot take seriously your critiques of my understanding. -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video > game is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters, > settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the > non-literal sense of Micro Star v. FormGen -- even by a new > scenario written for the existing game engine! It seems (IMHO) that the issue here *is* functional cloning. The characters, the whole "mise en scene" of the game is in the *data* files. The game executable would function like a video player, presenting the data in the data files and interacting with the user. And *this* is exactly what is protected by art.6,III. > > I think you'll find, on review, that even the deliberate intent of > evoking the original is enough to create an infringing derivative > work. When I get a moment, I'll find the litigation associated > with "The Wind Done Gone". Just to reassert my point, with the data I have at the moment, I don't believe that the game executable does this more than mplayer evokes the content of copyrighted works. After all, if you want to play the game legally, you must have a legally-acquired copy of the original game to supply the artwork. > > Cheers, > - Michael -- HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, the artwork (if included) would be literally infringing. The > > "mise en scene" doctrine is not about literal copying, it's about the > > creation of sequels (parodies, clones, etc.) that plagiarize the > > original work and siphon off the commercial potential of it and/or of > > derivative works. > > But the only people who can own a copy of this "sequel" are > people that own a legitimate copy of the game. > > So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the > commercial potential" work in this case? Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen? Micro Star further argues that the MAP files are not derivative works because they do not, in fact, incorporate any of D/N-3D's protected expression. In particular, Micro Star makes much of the fact that the N/I MAP files reference the source art library, but do not actually contain any art files themselves. Therefore, it claims, nothing of D/N-3D's is reproduced in the MAP files. In making this argument, Micro Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself--a beefy commando type named Duke who wanders around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun, lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 (11th Cir. 1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures.*fn5 And this is every bit as true when the infringing work is a clone of the game engine as when it is a game scenario. The fact that the cloners haven't gotten around to getting someone to clone the artwork yet, and therefore users will need a copy (legitimately acquired or otherwise) of the artwork in order to play the game, does not make it any less an infringement. > > If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have > > conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have > > no difficulty identifying those elements. > > This ad hominem approach of yours is getting annoying. It's a simple statement of fact. You do not understand the meaning of "derivative work". You have conclusively demonstrated this in the course of the GPL debate. > You've presented cases which show that you do not believe in your > own assertions about what derivative works mean. Specifically, > you've claimed that derivative works are disjoint from collecitive > works and anthologies, but you've also stated that the same work > can be both a derivative work and an anthology. Until you can > present a consistent view of your own beliefs, I cannot take > seriously your critiques of my understanding. Bullshit yourself if you like, but I doubt that anyone else is buying. I have explained how a derivative work and a collection / collective work / anthology differ, exhibited an example which is an anthology _of_ two derivative works (not "a derivative work and an anthology"), and cited case law out the yin-yang. The two participants in this discussion who do have legal qualifications (Humberto and Batist) have agreed that the two categories are disjoint in their respective jurisdictions -- meaning that a grant of license to create a derivative work of X does not grant license to anthologize it, and vice versa. Your latest example of a revised edition of an encyclopedia is just as easily disposed of. It's a collective work. That's because what's protected about it, as opposed to what's protected about the articles it contains, is the creative choices involved in the selection and arrangement of its contents. Note that there is a sense in which that bit of creative expression is itself derived from the selection-and-arrangement expression in the previous edition -- namely, that copyright in the 2005 edition doesn't extend the life of the copyright in the 2004 edition. Therefore, if I create a "parallel encyclopedia" with new articles on topics selected by reference to the 2004 edition of the Brittanica, it ceases to infringe when the copyright on the 2004 edition expires, and it can't be said to infringe the 2005 Brittanica thereafter. But an encyclopedia is not a "derivative work" of its articles in the sense that matters -- namely, that if I obtain a copyright holder's license to "create a derivative work" of some article, that does not give me license to put the result into my encyclopedia. At the end of the day, you have one and only one purpose in sticking to a definition of "derivative work" that has no basis in law or history -- to persist in claiming that the FSF FA
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video > > game is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters, > > settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the > > non-literal sense of Micro Star v. FormGen -- even by a new > > scenario written for the existing game engine! > > It seems (IMHO) that the issue here *is* functional cloning. The > characters, the whole "mise en scene" of the game is in the *data* > files. The game executable would function like a video player, > presenting the data in the data files and interacting with the user. > And *this* is exactly what is protected by art.6,III. Again from Micro Star v. FormGen: *fn5 We note that the N/I MAP files can only be used with D/N-3D. If another game could use the MAP files to tell the story of a mousy fellow who travels through a beige maze, killing vicious saltshakers with paperclips, then the MAP files would not incorporate the protected expression of D/N-3D because they would not be telling a D/N-3D story. The cloned game engine cannot, by the authors' own admission, be used for any purpose other than to tell Transport Tycoon "stories". Even if the openttd project were to create functional equivalents of all of the artwork and all of the other material contained in the data files from the original game, using alternate names for people and things, they would have to demonstrate pretty convincingly that it wasn't just a cover for encouraging recipients to rip off the original game's artwork and "storyline". Why would the burden of proof be on the openttd coders even if they were to create replacement artwork and rename all of the tiles? Because there's a clear and public record that copyright infringement is part and parcel of their technique of cloning. The openttd engine is not a generic game machine, it is a machine for creating Transport Tycoon sequels, period. > > I think you'll find, on review, that even the deliberate intent of > > evoking the original is enough to create an infringing derivative > > work. When I get a moment, I'll find the litigation associated > > with "The Wind Done Gone". > > Just to reassert my point, with the data I have at the moment, I > don't believe that the game executable does this more than mplayer > evokes the content of copyrighted works. After all, if you want to > play the game legally, you must have a legally-acquired copy of the > original game to supply the artwork. See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks, it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable expression from Transport Tycoon. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
> > So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the > > commercial potential" work in this case? On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen? ... > radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create > sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 > (11th Cir. 1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely > sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's > fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the > same reason, even if it contained no pictures.*fn5 > > And this is every bit as true when the infringing work is a clone of > the game engine as when it is a game scenario. In what way is this game engine clone a sequel to the original? It lets you play the original. In concept, it could let you play a sequel. Or, it could let you play an entirely different game. But no one has presented any reason to think that openttd represents a sequel. This is distinct from the FormGen case, which did represent a sequel. At "performance time", the FormGen modified game presented original MicroStar content together with FormGen content. It was not faithful to the original, it was a derivative work. > > > If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have > > > conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have > > > no difficulty identifying those elements. > > > > This ad hominem approach of yours is getting annoying. > > It's a simple statement of fact. You do not understand the meaning of > "derivative work". You have conclusively demonstrated this in the > course of the GPL debate. You mean when I countered your false claim that derivative works, collective works and anthologies form disjoint sets? I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced. > > You've presented cases which show that you do not believe in your > > own assertions about what derivative works mean. Specifically, > > you've claimed that derivative works are disjoint from collecitive > > works and anthologies, but you've also stated that the same work > > can be both a derivative work and an anthology. Until you can > > present a consistent view of your own beliefs, I cannot take > > seriously your critiques of my understanding. > > Bullshit yourself if you like, but I doubt that anyone else is buying. > I have explained how a derivative work and a collection / collective > work / anthology differ, exhibited an example which is an anthology > _of_ two derivative works (not "a derivative work and an anthology"), > and cited case law out the yin-yang. I have never claimed that they do not differ. I've disputed your assertion that they are disjoint. I've also disputed conclusions you've drawn which were based on this assertion that they are disjoint. > The two participants in this > discussion who do have legal qualifications (Humberto and Batist) have > agreed that the two categories are disjoint in their respective > jurisdictions -- meaning that a grant of license to create a > derivative work of X does not grant license to anthologize it, and > vice versa. "Disjoint" and "Different" are two very different concepts. Sets are different if there are elements in one set which are not in the other. Sets are disjoint if there are no elements in common between the sets. Your observation that derivative and collective works are different do not show that they are disjoint. > Your latest example of a revised edition of an encyclopedia is just as > easily disposed of. It's a collective work. That's because what's > protected about it, as opposed to what's protected about the articles > it contains, is the creative choices involved in the selection and > arrangement of its contents. Note that there is a sense in which that > bit of creative expression is itself derived from the > selection-and-arrangement expression in the previous edition -- > namely, that copyright in the 2005 edition doesn't extend the life of > the copyright in the 2004 edition. Are you claiming now that copyright law does not grant derivative protections (for example, protection when the work is translated to another language) to the encyclopaedia because it is a collective work? If not, the above does in any way show that these concepts are disjoint. -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the > > > commercial potential" work in this case? > > On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen? > ... > > radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create > > sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 > > (11th Cir. 1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely > > sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's > > fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the > > same reason, even if it contained no pictures.*fn5 > > > > And this is every bit as true when the infringing work is a clone of > > the game engine as when it is a game scenario. > > In what way is this game engine clone a sequel to the original? > > It lets you play the original. In concept, it could let you play a sequel. > Or, it could let you play an entirely different game. But no one has > presented any reason to think that openttd represents a sequel. Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of snippets from the "About" page: An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe". OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by Chris Sawyer and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many features were inspired by TTDPatch while others are original. Significant enhancements = - autorail build tool - canals/shiplifts - larger stations - non-uniform stations ... This is precisely the relationship that a game sequel bears to the original. > This is distinct from the FormGen case, which did represent > a sequel. At "performance time", the FormGen modified game > presented original MicroStar content together with FormGen > content. It was not faithful to the original, it was a derivative > work. You still haven't read Micro Star v. FormGen, have you? For one thing, you have Micro Star and FormGen backwards. Micro Star published a collection of third-party-authored scenarios for FormGen's Duke Nukem 3-D game engine. No "modified game", in the sense of a tweaked game engine, and no issue of "faithful to the original". "The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself ..." > > > > If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have > > > > conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have > > > > no difficulty identifying those elements. > > > > > > This ad hominem approach of yours is getting annoying. > > > > It's a simple statement of fact. You do not understand the meaning of > > "derivative work". You have conclusively demonstrated this in the > > course of the GPL debate. > > You mean when I countered your false claim that derivative works, > collective works and anthologies form disjoint sets? > > I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced. You continue not to understand the meaning of "derivative work", and you continue to exhibit that non-understanding with every message you write on the topic. You also continue to misrepresent my arguments -- where did you get a third disjoint set "anthologies"? -- and to vastly overstate the success of your "countering" anything. > > > You've presented cases which show that you do not believe in your > > > own assertions about what derivative works mean. Specifically, > > > you've claimed that derivative works are disjoint from collecitive > > > works and anthologies, but you've also stated that the same work > > > can be both a derivative work and an anthology. Until you can > > > present a consistent view of your own beliefs, I cannot take > > > seriously your critiques of my understanding. > > > > Bullshit yourself if you like, but I doubt that anyone else is buying. > > I have explained how a derivative work and a collection / collective > > work / anthology differ, exhibited an example which is an anthology > > _of_ two derivative works (not "a derivative work and an anthology"), > > and cited case law out the yin-yang. > > I have never claimed that they do not differ. I've disputed your > assertion that they are disjoint. > > I've also disputed conclusions you've drawn which were based > on this assertion that they are disjoint. Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work of X. Not even if the "selection and arrangement" involved is original enough to be copyrightable, and a fortiori if it is not (as in the case of Quagga + Net-SNMP + libssl, an obvious combination (given the text of each) if ever I saw one). Assert it to your dying day, that's still not what the phrase "derivative work" means in modern jurisprudence, anywhere in the world. [snip] > > Your latest example of a revised edition of an encyclopedia is just as > > easily disposed of. It's a collective work. That's because what's > > protected about it, as opposed to what's protected about
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It lets you play the original. In concept, it could let you play a sequel. > > Or, it could let you play an entirely different game. But no one has > > presented any reason to think that openttd represents a sequel. > > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of > snippets from the "About" page: > > > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe". > > OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by Chris > Sawyer and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many features > were inspired by TTDPatch while others are original. > > Significant enhancements > = > - autorail build tool > - canals/shiplifts > - larger stations > - non-uniform stations > ... > > > This is precisely the relationship that a game sequel bears to the original. I'm still dubious. Yes, you're right that this appears to satisfy the same requirements which were expressed about MicroStar. (And, you're right, I confused FormGen and MicroStar in my last post.) However, that is not the same thing as satisfying those requirements. In particular, you've still not identified the creative elements from the original game which openttd plagiarizes. Nor have you identified how. This might seem like verbal game playing, but if there are no limits on this kind of thing then everything infringes on everything, which clearly is not the case. > > > It's a simple statement of fact. You do not understand the meaning of > > > "derivative work". You have conclusively demonstrated this in the > > > course of the GPL debate. > > > > You mean when I countered your false claim that derivative works, > > collective works and anthologies form disjoint sets? > > > > I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced. > > You continue not to understand the meaning of "derivative work", and > you continue to exhibit that non-understanding with every message you > write on the topic. You also continue to misrepresent my arguments -- > where did you get a third disjoint set "anthologies"? -- and to vastly > overstate the success of your "countering" anything. My apologies, I was combining some statements you made with statements made by someone else. So: are anthologies "derivative works" or "collective works", or something else? > > > Your latest example of a revised edition of an encyclopedia is just as > > > easily disposed of. It's a collective work. That's because what's > > > protected about it, as opposed to what's protected about the articles > > > it contains, is the creative choices involved in the selection and > > > arrangement of its contents. Note that there is a sense in which that > > > bit of creative expression is itself derived from the > > > selection-and-arrangement expression in the previous edition -- > > > namely, that copyright in the 2005 edition doesn't extend the life of > > > the copyright in the 2004 edition. > > > > Are you claiming now that copyright law does not grant derivative > > protections (for example, protection when the work is translated to > > another language) to the encyclopaedia because it is a collective > > work? > > Talk about false dilemmas. All copyright holders in the encyclopaedia > and its constituent works have a cause of action for copyright > infringement in the event of an unauthorized translation. If the > copyrighted selection and arrangement of the original has been > substantially copied into the translation, then the translation > infringes the copyright in the collective work. Ok, I was trying to make some sense of your claims, and had been reduced to wild guessing. I think we agree that the protections which are attributed to derivative works and the protections which are attributed to collective works apply to any work which needs those protections, regardless of whether or not you admit that the work is a derivative or collective work. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On Monday 16 May 2005 05:31 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work > of X. Not even if the "selection and arrangement" involved is > original enough to be copyrightable, and a fortiori if it is not (as > in the case of Quagga + Net-SNMP + libssl, an obvious combination > (given the text of each) if ever I saw one). Assert it to your dying > day, that's still not what the phrase "derivative work" means in > modern jurisprudence, anywhere in the world. I apologize for appearing stupid, having failed to keep abreast on current debian-legal discussions, but I can't help but think there is something wrong with the paragraph above. Why exactly is a collection of X, Y, and Z not a derivative work of the three? Does this mean I can buy a three books (X, Y, and Z) tear off the bindings, rebind them into one book XYZ and resell at a profit? The questions surrounding what is and is not a derivative work are quite complex and are not made any easier by the confusing definition in the Copyright Act. The question, it seems, is whether the compelation is "a work based upon one or more preexisting works." Certainly my compelation book XYZ is based on the preexisting works of X, Y, and Z... but that doesn't help us figure out if its a "work" in the eyes of the copyright statute. Generally this requires some showing of original authorship... but your claim is even if the "selection and arrangement" is original enough to be copyrightable, its still not a derivative work. But that doesn't seem right... Book XYZ is both "a work" of original authorship AND "based upon one or more preexisting works." I'll readily admit to being inexperienced in this area. I'm just finishing up my second year in law school... so I've got lots more to learn and am happy to be proved wrong. -Sean p.s. PLEASE don't cite cases to make your point... reading a whole case takes a lot more time that just explaining the logic used by the Court. -- Sean Kellogg 2nd Year - University of Washington School of Law GPSS Senator - Student Bar Association Editor-at-Large - National ACS Blog [http://www.acsblog.org] c: 206.498.8207 e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] w: http://probonogeek.blogspot.com So, let go ...Jump in ...Oh well, what you waiting for? ...it's all right ...'Cause there's beauty in the breakdown
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of > snippets from the "About" page: > > > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe". > > OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by Chris > Sawyer and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many features > were inspired by TTDPatch while others are original. [...] > > This is precisely the relationship that a game sequel bears to the original= > . [...] I disagree. A sequel would have (a) different game/s and not just a different game engine. This seems much closer to an alternative player for the same files (the mplayer model) than the Duke Nukem case you cited repeatedly, as far as I can tell. I'm also disappointed by the mix of personal attacks, analogies, detailed case specifics and foreign languages in this thread. Please try to explain to the laymen instead of handwaving. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 17 May 2005 05:14:13 GMT, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of > > snippets from the "About" page: > > > > > > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe". > > > > OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by Chris > > Sawyer and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many features > > were inspired by TTDPatch while others are original. [...] > > > > This is precisely the relationship that a game sequel bears to the original= > > . [...] > > I disagree. A sequel would have (a) different game/s and not just > a different game engine. This seems much closer to an alternative > player for the same files (the mplayer model) than the Duke > Nukem case you cited repeatedly, as far as I can tell. There are lots of DVD (DivX, etc.) players in the world, and all of the movie's plot, characters, etc. are in the movie's data, not the player. OpenTTD is to Transport Tycoon Deluxe as Civilization III is to Civilization II. Except, of course, that Civ III was created under license from the Civ II copyright holder, and they probably retouched some of the graphics. > I'm also disappointed by the mix of personal attacks, analogies, > detailed case specifics and foreign languages in this thread. > Please try to explain to the laymen instead of handwaving. Not sure about the foreign languages, but I'm tired of the rest, too. I know that I'm a bit late to the party and that freeciv and an endless supply of Pac-Man, Sokoban, and Tetris clones are already in the archive. But if you care to know the truth, none of them is any safer or more legal to distribute than any other piece of abandonware -- unlike, for instance, game machine emulators, which don't contain protected expression from any particular game's mise en scene. If you would like, I'll pull some quotes from Nimmer on Copyright next time I'm in a law library. Which may be tomorrow or next decade. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Sean Kellogg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Monday 16 May 2005 05:31 pm, Michael K. Edwards wrote: > > Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work > > of X. Not even if the "selection and arrangement" involved is > > original enough to be copyrightable, and a fortiori if it is not (as > > in the case of Quagga + Net-SNMP + libssl, an obvious combination > > (given the text of each) if ever I saw one). Assert it to your dying > > day, that's still not what the phrase "derivative work" means in > > modern jurisprudence, anywhere in the world. > > I apologize for appearing stupid, having failed to keep abreast on current > debian-legal discussions, but I can't help but think there is something wrong > with the paragraph above. Why exactly is a collection of X, Y, and Z not a > derivative work of the three? Does this mean I can buy a three books (X, Y, > and Z) tear off the bindings, rebind them into one book XYZ and resell at a > profit? The questions surrounding what is and is not a derivative work are > quite complex and are not made any easier by the confusing definition in the > Copyright Act. The 17 USC 101 (1976 and later) definition isn't that bad, and the one in the Berne Convention is even clearer. Derivative works are sequels, translations, adaptations to the silver screen, that sort of thing. Collective works are anthologies and encyclopedias and the Color-Coordinated Leather-Bound 2005 Main and Alternate Selections of the Book-of-the-Month Club. These two categories exist for different historical reasons and have separate legislative and judicial histories (note that there is no definition of "derivative works" in the 1909 Copyright Act), so the presence of separate definitions in today's 17 USC 101 is no surprise. The statute doesn't need to say they're technically disjoint categories (which is what all that silly symbolic math is about); almost no judge would confuse them if a case's outcome actually depended on the distinction, and if one did, that's what appeals courts are for. Authorization to publish copies is just that -- authorization to copy -- and it takes explicit authorization (a separate license "scope") to do any of the other things. (In some cases this license may be implied through conduct; it's still a creature of contract law, though, as outlined in Effects Associates v. Cohen, and this is long since baked into Nimmer.) Sane people authorize something specific instead of playing games with the legal categories; the GPL doesn't do the sane thing because it pretends not to be governed by contract law, and as a result the drafter is hoist upon his own petard. > The question, it seems, is whether the compelation is "a work based upon one > or more preexisting works." Certainly my compelation book XYZ is based on > the preexisting works of X, Y, and Z... but that doesn't help us figure out > if its a "work" in the eyes of the copyright statute. Generally this > requires some showing of original authorship... but your claim is even if > the "selection and arrangement" is original enough to be copyrightable, its > still not a derivative work. But that doesn't seem right... Book XYZ is > both "a work" of original authorship AND "based upon one or more preexisting > works." That is not the question. The question is whether it was created from the original work[s] by "recasting, transforming, or adapting" them (derivative work) on one hand, or by "assembling into a collective whole" (collective work) -- or, if you like, "selecting, coordinating, or arranging" them (compilation; and if the originals are themselves copyrightable, collective work) on the other hand. The Berne Convention doesn't go to the trouble of putting "one or more original works" into the definition of "derivative works", which is just additional evidence that historically collections are not a flavor of derivative work. > I'll readily admit to being inexperienced in this area. I'm just finishing up > my second year in law school... so I've got lots more to learn and am happy > to be proved wrong. I think I might have visited a law school once. :-) IANAL. > p.s. PLEASE don't cite cases to make your point... reading a whole case takes > a lot more time that just explaining the logic used by the Court. Fair enough. I think you will find extremely few cases that hinge upon the distinction anyway. The only purpose for which it really matters that they are separate legal categories is when somebody writes a generic offer of contract, licensing the creation and distribution of "derivative works under copyright law" in return for some specific performance, instead of a specific license to translate "American Sphinx" into Klingon in return for $x per copy sold. But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done -- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the licensee's right to have it construed narrowly if he or she so reques
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done > -- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the > licensee's right to have it construed narrowly if he or she so requests. I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being construed here: If it's construed narrowly, this simply means that the licensee wasn't granted license for that case. [Clearly, the question of whether or not license is needed is a separate question.] -- Raul
RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
> > See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to > Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks, > it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable > expression from Transport Tycoon. Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right. -- Cheers, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
De: MJ Ray [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > "Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of > > snippets from the "About" page: > > > > An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport > > Tycoon Deluxe". > > > > OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by > > Chris Sawyer and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many > > features were inspired by TTDPatch while others are original. > > [...] This is precisely the relationship that a game > > sequel bears to the original . [...] > > I disagree. A sequel would have (a) different game/s and not just > a different game engine. This seems much closer to an alternative > player for the same files (the mplayer model) than the Duke Nukem > case you cited repeatedly, as far as I can tell. I ended up agreeing with him after considering that the gaming experience contained in the code could be considered part of the "mise en scene" of the game and, as such, part of copyrightable creative expression. > > I'm also disappointed by the mix of personal attacks, analogies, > detailed case specifics and foreign languages in this thread. > Please try to explain to the laymen instead of handwaving. I took a little bit of offense reading this last paragraph; in parts: * personal attacks: yeah, this was the low point of this thread, and I think both Raul and Michael should moderate themselves... myself, if I exceeded any courtesy boundaries, I apologize; * analogies and detailed case specifics: well, I imagined that a debian-legal discussion, to be able to reach *any* meaningful conclusion about matters of law, should be akin to a real-world legal discussion (full of analogies and detailed case specifics); * foreign languages: it would not be difficult to understand that this point is the one I took most offense in your comment; I try not to disrespect the English-language nature of the list, and I make the effort to translate (the best I can in my limited knowledge of English and English-legalese) every statute, case law, and doctrine information that I have in Portuguese; if in some rare occasions I quote the original or try to give a Spanish translation, it's intenting to make myself more clear. Do you reaaly think I (or other) over-used foreing languages in this thread? Could you give an example, so I (or others) could *not* make the same mistake again, please? -- Thanks, HTH, Massa -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But when someone does so -- as the drafter of the GPL has done > > -- I think a court should have no difficulty in acknowledging the > > licensee's right to have it construed narrowly if he or she so requests. "it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and hence of 'work based on the Program'" > I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being > construed here: > > If it's construed narrowly, this simply means that the licensee wasn't > granted license for that case. You are so utterly and deliberately misrepresenting my argument, and the implication of "construed narrowly" in this context, as to entirely lose my respect. > [Clearly, the question of whether or not license is needed is > a separate question.] Blenderized equine. Don't let him go on bullshitting you, guys. - Michael
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and > hence of 'work based on the Program'" And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL. > > I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being > > construed here: > > > > If it's construed narrowly, this simply means that the licensee wasn't > > granted license for that case. > > You are so utterly and deliberately misrepresenting my argument, and > the implication of "construed narrowly" in this context, as to > entirely lose my respect. I'm not claiming that this is your argument. I'm claiming that this is the structure of the GPL. I think your "entirely lose my respect" quip means that you think that license isn't needed for some cases because license has already been granted for other cases. Or maybe not. I certainly can't claim that I understand your arguments -- I have to guess to figure out what it is you think you're saying. -- Raul
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "it" = "the definition of 'derivative work under copyright law', and > > hence of 'work based on the Program'" > > And, hence, something that's licensed under the GPL. Did you happen to notice that not every term of the GPL applies exclusively to the isolated distribution of a "work based on the Program"? Did you happen to notice any of the discussion about how a court might approach the construction of the contract with regard to authority to create and distribute distro CD's and other collective works? > > > I agree -- especially since it's the grant of license which is being > > > construed here: > > > > > > If it's construed narrowly, this simply means that the licensee wasn't > > > granted license for that case. > > > > You are so utterly and deliberately misrepresenting my argument, and > > the implication of "construed narrowly" in this context, as to > > entirely lose my respect. > > I'm not claiming that this is your argument. > > I'm claiming that this is the structure of the GPL. > > I think your "entirely lose my respect" quip means > that you think that license isn't needed for some cases > because license has already been granted for other > cases. Or maybe not. I certainly can't claim that > I understand your arguments -- I have to guess > to figure out what it is you think you're saying. Look, I take that back -- you haven't entirely lost my respect. I have to step back and see that your (in my view) reprehensible misrepresentation of my arguments is happening in the context of a debate that has gotten pretty acrimonious on both sides. It's pretty normal, under these circumstances, for each participant to regard his own errors as peccadillos and the other's as mortal sins. You, at least, can claim long and honorable service on Debian's behalf, and it's not your fault if you are (IMHO) unskilled in the form of legal discourse that requires a solid grounding in statute and precedent. Not to mention digesting the terminally polysyllabic style that I seem to have in common with at least some appellate judges. :-) But for future reference, if you think that something I have written leads inexorably to the conclusion that Debian is prohibited from distributing Sarge CD #1, you're probably misreading it -- except when I express that fear myself, as I have with respect to the "agency to sublicense" issue. OK? Cheers, - Michael
Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But for future reference, if you think that something I have written > leads inexorably to the conclusion that Debian is prohibited from > distributing Sarge CD #1, you're probably misreading it -- except when > I express that fear myself, as I have with respect to the "agency to > sublicense" issue. OK? Ok. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > Note that there is no question (IANAL, TINLA) that openttd
> > infringes the copyright on Transport Tycoon in any jurisdiction
> > that recognizes the doctrine of "mise en scene", i. e., pretty
> > much any jurisdiction that has a copyright law. See Micro Star v.
> > FormGen.
>
> I don't recall if 17USC117 makes any mention of it, but functional
> cloning of any program is protected by Brazilian Computer Programs
> Law in art.6, III (''It does not constitute infringement on the
> computer program author's rights: [...] III - the occurrence of a
> program similar to other, preexistent, when the similarity is by
> force of the functional application characteristics _or_ of the
> observance of technical or normative regulations _or_ limitation of
> alternative form for its expression'' -- underlines and terrible
> English translation are mine).
The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video game
is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters, settings, plot
lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the non-literal sense
of Micro Star v. FormGen -- even by a new scenario written for the
existing game engine!
> > In general, Debian should not be distributing game clones, in
> > main, in contrib, or anywhere else. The fact that copyright
> > holders rarely bother to pursue legal action against half-assed
> > clones of obsolete games does not mean that they are legitimate in
> > the eyes of the law.
>
> The mise en scene infringement would only be in the case of the
> maps and scenery of the game, which, in casu, won't be distributed
> by Debian. Anyway, you are quite right that game clones are not
> completely legitimate in principle, exactly because they would
> *normally* come with the infringing sprites, maps, sceneries, etc.
I think you'll find, on review, that even the deliberate intent of
evoking the original is enough to create an infringing derivative
work. When I get a moment, I'll find the litigation associated with
"The Wind Done Gone".
Cheers,
- Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to >> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks, >> it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable >> expression from Transport Tycoon. > > Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right. I'm not so convinced. It depends on how much of the game is defined in the data files, and how much is part of the engine, in other words, how generic the game engine is. Unless a proper distinction is made, you could argue that the game was made to run on an Intel CPU, and thus AMD is infringing on the game by making a machine capable of running it. I don't expect anyone to seriously attempt such an argument, but with a dedicated game console, the borders are more blurred, especially when the manufacturer of the original hardware also produces games. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RES: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
De: Måns Rullgård [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my > >> response to Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in > >> reference to artworks, it's the fact that the game experience > >> plagiarizes protectable expression from Transport Tycoon. > > > > Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right. > > I'm not so convinced. It depends on how much of the game is > defined in the data files, and how much is part of the engine, in > other words, how generic the game engine is. You do have a point, too. But in the specific case of TTD, could the game engine be *really* generic? I don't really think so. -- HTH, Massa
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * personal attacks: yeah, this was the low point of this thread, and > I think both Raul and Michael should moderate themselves... > myself, if I exceeded any courtesy boundaries, I apologize; I've been trying to keep my tone moderate. Additionally, I think I've only been attacking arguments, not people. If at any time someone thinks I've failed on either of these points (especially the "attacking people" problem), please send me private email describing the issue. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Måns Rullgård <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >> See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to > >> Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks, > >> it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable > >> expression from Transport Tycoon. > > > > Ok. I'm conviced you're probably right. > > I'm not so convinced. It depends on how much of the game is defined > in the data files, and how much is part of the engine, in other words, > how generic the game engine is. Well, the authors don't say it's a generic game engine. They say it's an open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe". No less, no more. > Unless a proper distinction is made, you could argue that the game was > made to run on an Intel CPU, and thus AMD is infringing on the game by > making a machine capable of running it. I don't expect anyone to > seriously attempt such an argument, but with a dedicated game console, > the borders are more blurred, especially when the manufacturer of the > original hardware also produces games. People have seriously attempted such arguments (using copyright on the game machine's BIOS as the hook), and have lost at the appellate level. See for example Sony v. Connectix ( http://laws.findlaw.com/9th/9915852.html ), which in turn cites Sega v. Accolade. See also Galoob v. Nintendo ( http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/openlaw/DVD/cases/Galoob_v_Nintendo.html ) for a discussion of the borderline between temporary alteration of a game's behavior at run-time and the creation of a derivative work. I refer you again to Lexmark v. Static Control, a brilliant Sixth Circuit exposition of where courts should (and do) place limits on the copyright monopoly to prevent its abuse as a tool to stifle legitimate competition. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > * personal attacks: yeah, this was the low point of this thread, and > I think both Raul and Michael should moderate themselves... > myself, if I exceeded any courtesy boundaries, I apologize; Look, moderation is great when the other guy is making a reasonably conscientious effort to play thesis-antithesis-synthesis and come out the other side with a little bit more truth than when we went in. But have you been paying attention to Raul's debating tactics? It is getting ever more obvious that he has no intention of fairly quoting anyone -- me, an appellate decision, a legal commentator -- if he can muddy the waters by misquoting them. Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v. Microsoft as proof that some courts skip contract analysis, and then refusing to acknowledge that he was citing the summary of the district court's erroneous decision -- it's just too much. Not to mention replying to my "courts are likely to construe 'derivative work' narrowly on the licensee's request" as if I had said "courts are likely to construe the license narrowly and thus find the licensee's conduct to be outside it", which is OBVIOUSLY not what I was saying. There's a point at which it crosses over from incompetence to malice, and I think he's well past it. My residual obligation of moderation is to the other readers of my screeds, who still don't particularly need their inboxes polluted with language much stronger than "bullshit". For what it's worth, where I come from, accusing someone of bullshitting is a lot milder than calling him a liar. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with > reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v. > Microsoft as proof that some courts skip contract analysis, and then > refusing to acknowledge that he was citing the summary of the district > court's erroneous decision -- it's just too much. Not to mention > replying to my "courts are likely to construe 'derivative work' > narrowly on the licensee's request" as if I had said "courts are > likely to construe the license narrowly and thus find the licensee's > conduct to be outside it", which is OBVIOUSLY not what I was saying. > There's a point at which it crosses over from incompetence to malice, > and I think he's well past it. Given the bulk of what you've written, the illogical debating tactics you've used in the posts I was responding to (including, but not limited to, ad hominem), I find myself unable to say much of anything about how obvious your intent is. Put differently: I do not believe I was being unfair, but I might have been. -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/17/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Up until a day or two ago I could chalk that up to difficulty with > > reading comprehension, but the whole business with citing Sun v. > > Microsoft as proof that some courts skip contract analysis, and then > > refusing to acknowledge that he was citing the summary of the district > > court's erroneous decision -- it's just too much. Not to mention > > replying to my "courts are likely to construe 'derivative work' > > narrowly on the licensee's request" as if I had said "courts are > > likely to construe the license narrowly and thus find the licensee's > > conduct to be outside it", which is OBVIOUSLY not what I was saying. > > There's a point at which it crosses over from incompetence to malice, > > and I think he's well past it. > > Given the bulk of what you've written, the illogical debating > tactics you've used in the posts I was responding to (including, > but not limited to, ad hominem), I find myself unable to say > much of anything about how obvious your intent is. > > Put differently: I do not believe I was being unfair, but I might > have been. On review, "malice" was stronger than is justified, and I retract it. Raul is being decent in reply, and that tickles my sense of shame. I'll let others judge how logical his and my debating tactics are, and I still think his paraphrases are often rather outrageously incorrect, but let's go back to calling them nothing worse than honest error. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
For more observations on the legal basis for finding a derivative work
where no literal copying has taken place, see Palladium Music v.
EatSleepMusic at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/10th/046061.html . For GPL
purposes, it is significant that Palladium's copyrights were held
"invalid and unenforceable because it has failed to obtain compulsory
or consensual licenses from the copyright owners of the underlying
musical compositions". The compulsory licensing bit applies only to
musical recordings in the US, and has a history all its own; but I
think Palladium would be a strong precedent declaring derivative work
copyrights unenforceable if they were not created under appropriate
license from the copyright holder on the original.
And if you thought the Circular 14 citation was worth much (even if it
were to support Raul's assertions, which I'm not convinced it does),
here's a telling excerpt from Palladium:
(6) We note Palladium's reliance upon Circular 56 in lieu of citation
to the Copyright Act itself. The circulars provided by the Copyright
Office are intended simply to aid the public in understanding
copyright law. See Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental
Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 1242 n.38 (3d Cir. 1986) ("Copyright
Office circulars are not technical documents, but are `intended to
present simple explanations of the law,' for lay persons."). While
they certainly may supplement our understanding of what is required
for effective registration, see Xoom, Inc. v. Imageline, Inc., 323
F.3d 279, 284-85 (4th Cir. 2003), they are hardly more binding on
statutory interpretation than a plain reading of the Copyright Act
itself, or the Copyright regulations, codified at 37 C.F.R. 202 et
al. See Whelan, 797 F.2d at 1242 n.38 (refusing to give deference to
a circular).
Cheers,
- Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder, and didn't even have have license. That doesn't seem very interesting. -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In other words, Palladium wasn't the copyright holder, > and didn't even have have license. > > That doesn't seem very interesting. You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather than the reasoning that they contain. The Palladium decision addresses, among other things, three points of law -- whether any literal copying is required in order to find that one work is a derivative of another, whether a valid copyright can be obtained on a derivative work created without license from the copyright holder on the original, and whether a US Copyright Office Circular has any value as a legal precedent -- that I find quite relevant to the discussion at hand. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal > precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather > than the reasoning that they contain. Actually, I made the (perhaps false) assumption that you had quoted the relevant part of the decision. I was only commenting on the text you had quoted. Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. This is the "derivative and collective works are disjoint" idea which you seem to have even though it's not supported by law. I've not yet read the case summary to determine see what it says about the literal copying issue. -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You appear to labor under a common misconception about legal > > precedents -- namely, that it is their outcome that matters rather > > than the reasoning that they contain. > > Actually, I made the (perhaps false) assumption that you had > quoted the relevant part of the decision. I was only commenting > on the text you had quoted. Did you notice the set of quote maks around "invalid and unenforceable because it has failed to obtain compulsory or consensual licenses from the copyright owners of the underlying musical compositions"? I put them there because that's another excerpt from the decision. > Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars > in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that > the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright > act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. This is > the "derivative and collective works are disjoint" idea which > you seem to have even though it's not supported by law. Still working on your proof by repeated assertion, are you? Collective works are not derivative works under copyright law, as I, Humberto, and Batist have proven to our own and each other's satisfaction, and the apparent satisfaction of all other active participants in this discussion, under the Berne Convention and under three otherwise widely divergent national implementations. The fact that you cannot distinguish between a set containing the element X and a set containing a collective work that incorporates X is not my problem. > I've not yet read the case summary to determine see what > it says about the literal copying issue. You should not have any difficulty in establishing the correctness of "no literal copying has taken place" with regard to the Palladium opinion by applying your eyeballs to it for ninety seconds or so, especially if you use a browser that can find the words "preexisting sounds" in its text. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars > > in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that > > the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright > > act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. This is > > the "derivative and collective works are disjoint" idea which > > you seem to have even though it's not supported by law. > > Still working on your proof by repeated assertion, are you? > Collective works are not derivative works under copyright law, as I, > Humberto, and Batist have proven to our own and each other's > satisfaction, and the apparent satisfaction of all other active > participants in this discussion, under the Berne Convention and under > three otherwise widely divergent national implementations. The fact > that you cannot distinguish between a set containing the element X and > a set containing a collective work that incorporates X is not my > problem. You've failed to offer any authority for your assertion that derivative and collective works are disjoint. I agree that you have cited plenty of authority which shows that they are different. I've presented examples -- which you have apparently agreed are legally valid -- where the same work is both a collective work and a derivative work. You've asserted that these are not valid examples of this concept, but your "logic" escapes me. > > I've not yet read the case summary to determine see what > > it says about the literal copying issue. > > You should not have any difficulty in establishing the correctness of > "no literal copying has taken place" with regard to the Palladium > opinion by applying your eyeballs to it for ninety seconds or so, > especially if you use a browser that can find the words "preexisting > sounds" in its text. It's the relevance I'm having problems with. Palladium created literal copies of some music, without a license. The court declared that these copies were derivatives of the original and that Palladium did not have a license for them. In the context of openttd, this would be analogous to creating fresh copies of the game data which basically looked like and acted like the original game. But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about the game engine. The game engine is to the game what a musical instrument is to music. You use a musical instrument to play music in much the same way you use a game engine to play the game. There might be some uniquely creative elements to some musical instrument, which are copyrightable. Likewise, there might be some uniquely creative elements in the game engine which are copyrightable. We just haven't identified any, yet. -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Still working on your proof by repeated assertion, are you? > > Collective works are not derivative works under copyright law, as I, > > Humberto, and Batist have proven to our own and each other's > > satisfaction, and the apparent satisfaction of all other active > > participants in this discussion, under the Berne Convention and under > > three otherwise widely divergent national implementations. The fact > > that you cannot distinguish between a set containing the element X and > > a set containing a collective work that incorporates X is not my > > problem. > > You've failed to offer any authority for your assertion that > derivative and collective works are disjoint. BS. I've given you treaty, statute, case law, Nimmer, the works. > I agree that you have cited plenty of authority which shows > that they are different. If a work is formed by one of the processes listed in 17 USC 101 under "compilations" / "collective works", it's a collective work. If it's formed by one of the processes listed under "derivative works", it's a derivative work. Those sets of processes are non-overlapping. In the real world, works of an arbitrary degree of similarity may be produced by either set of processes given different inputs. Hence it can be a bit of a judgment call which process came last, when you come to certain borderline cases such as translated anthologies. But the difference is clear enough in principle to justify the stronger word "disjoint" for all legal purposes, and especially for the purpose of determining that the largest "derivative work" of Quagga in Quagga+Net-SNMP+libssl is Quagga itself. End of argument. (How did this debate spill over into this thread, anyway?) > I've presented examples -- which you have apparently > agreed are legally valid -- where the same work is both > a collective work and a derivative work. You've asserted > that these are not valid examples of this concept, but > your "logic" escapes me. What examples would those be? If you are talking about the 2005 Brittanica or the even-more-borderline example that I provided (a translation of an encyclopedia / an encyclopedia of translations), I have both drawn the borderline for you and explained why it is unimportant to reaching the correct legal conclusion given several possible sets of facts about licenses granted. The only circumstance under which it matters is when you write "derivative work under copyright law" into the text of an offer of contract, and I believe I've pummeled that quagga to the necessary extent. > > > I've not yet read the case summary to determine see what > > > it says about the literal copying issue. > > > > You should not have any difficulty in establishing the correctness of > > "no literal copying has taken place" with regard to the Palladium > > opinion by applying your eyeballs to it for ninety seconds or so, > > especially if you use a browser that can find the words "preexisting > > sounds" in its text. > > It's the relevance I'm having problems with. > > Palladium created literal copies of some music, without a license. > The court declared that these copies were derivatives of the original > and that Palladium did not have a license for them. No. Palladium "reverse engineered" the sheet music for the accompaniment to thousands of pop songs and recorded them, without literal copying of the original recordings (i. e. the use of "preexisting sounds"), as karaoke backing music. When another karaoke publisher ripped off a bunch of those tracks and Palladium filed suit, they lost because they didn't have a valid copyright, for lack of license from the original copyright holders. This is relevant to OpenTTD, for instance, because its authors don't (AFAIK) have a license from the copyright holder on Transport Tycoon Deluxe to create a sequel/adaptation/whatever, and so they don't have a valid copyright on OpenTTD, so they can't license it to you and me under the GPL (or any other license that has any basis in copyright). > In the context of openttd, this would be analogous to creating > fresh copies of the game data which basically looked like and > acted like the original game. > > But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about > the game engine. We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer to "mise en scene" than to "public performance" / "unauthorized recording", so the process of establishing the fact of copying is a bit different. But with regard to freeciv (and the hypothesized OpenTTD-that-doesn't-need-bits-of-the-original), I think it vanishingly unlikely (IANAL) that the copyright holder on the original would fail to establish facts in support of infringement. > The game engine is to the game what a musical instrument > is to music. You use a musical inst
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You've failed to offer any authority for your assertion that > > derivative and collective works are disjoint. > > BS. I've given you treaty, statute, case law, Nimmer, the works. You've adequately proven that derivative works and collective works are different. You've yet to provide a citation which shows that they are disjoint. > > I agree that you have cited plenty of authority which shows > > that they are different. > > If a work is formed by one of the processes listed in 17 USC 101 under > "compilations" / "collective works", it's a collective work. If it's > formed by one of the processes listed under "derivative works", it's a > derivative work. Those sets of processes are non-overlapping. Both kinds of processes can be accurate in describing the creation of a particular work. > In the real world, works of an arbitrary degree of similarity may be > produced by either set of processes given different inputs. Hence it > can be a bit of a judgment call which process came last, when you come > to certain borderline cases such as translated anthologies. But the > difference is clear enough in principle to justify the stronger word > "disjoint" for all legal purposes, and especially for the purpose of > determining that the largest "derivative work" of Quagga in > Quagga+Net-SNMP+libssl is Quagga itself. End of argument. You've also not cited any credible authority which claims that the "process which came last" is the only relevant issue. > (How did this debate spill over into this thread, anyway?) You brought up the copyright office circulars, so I mentioned why I had originally proposed them. > > I've presented examples -- which you have apparently > > agreed are legally valid -- where the same work is both > > a collective work and a derivative work. You've asserted > > that these are not valid examples of this concept, but > > your "logic" escapes me. > > What examples would those be? If you are talking about the 2005 > Brittanica or the even-more-borderline example that I provided (a > translation of an encyclopedia / an encyclopedia of translations), I > have both drawn the borderline for you and explained why it is > unimportant to reaching the correct legal conclusion given several > possible sets of facts about licenses granted. That's one of the examples. In any event, I'm still not seeing any reason to believe that derivative works are disjoint from collective works. If showing that the issue is irrelevant shows that there's no legally valid reason to think they need to be disjoint. > > Palladium created literal copies of some music, without a license. > > The court declared that these copies were derivatives of the original > > and that Palladium did not have a license for them. > > No. Palladium "reverse engineered" the sheet music for the > accompaniment to thousands of pop songs and recorded them, without > literal copying of the original recordings (i. e. the use of > "preexisting sounds"), as karaoke backing music. To avoid further arguments here, let's go with what the court said: Palladium hires musicians and technicians to record music made popular by other artists. The recordings it produces sound similar to the original artist and are produced "in the style" of that artist. Palladium does not, however, incorporate any previously recorded sound components in its production and it does not attempt to change in any way the original musical compositions it uses. The final product is an original sound recording of a previously copyrighted musical composition. > When another karaoke publisher ripped off a bunch of those tracks and > Palladium > filed suit, they lost because they didn't have a valid copyright, for lack of > license from the original copyright holders. No disagreement here. > This is relevant to OpenTTD, for instance, because its authors don't > (AFAIK) have a license from the copyright holder on Transport Tycoon > Deluxe to create a sequel/adaptation/whatever, and so they don't have > a valid copyright on OpenTTD, so they can't license it to you and me > under the GPL (or any other license that has any basis in copyright). I disagree -- the game's composition is in the game data. They don't have a copyright on the game data. I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't copyrightable in the first place. > > In the context of openttd, this would be analogous to creating > > fresh copies of the game data which basically looked like and > > acted like the original game. > > > > But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about > > the game engine. > > We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require > literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer to "mise > en scene" than to "p
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip horsepucky and irrelevancies] > > This is relevant to OpenTTD, for instance, because its authors don't > > (AFAIK) have a license from the copyright holder on Transport Tycoon > > Deluxe to create a sequel/adaptation/whatever, and so they don't have > > a valid copyright on OpenTTD, so they can't license it to you and me > > under the GPL (or any other license that has any basis in copyright). > > I disagree -- the game's composition is in the game data. They don't > have a copyright on the game data. > > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't > copyrightable in the first place. "Mise en scene", my friend, "mise en scene". > > > In the context of openttd, this would be analogous to creating > > > fresh copies of the game data which basically looked like and > > > acted like the original game. > > > > > > But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about > > > the game engine. > > > > We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require > > literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer to "mise > > en scene" than to "public performance" / "unauthorized recording", so > > the process of establishing the fact of copying is a bit different. > > But with regard to freeciv (and the hypothesized > > OpenTTD-that-doesn't-need-bits-of-the-original), I think it > > vanishingly unlikely (IANAL) that the copyright holder on the original > > would fail to establish facts in support of infringement. > > And all you have to do is identify the creative elements in question > and I'd likely agree with you. > > All I'm saying is that we've not as yet identified any. Go look at the OpenTTD website and tell me that you honestly can't see any basis for a belief that the OpenTTD game engine copies elements of copyrightable expression from Transport Tycoon Deluxe. > > > The game engine is to the game what a musical instrument > > > is to music. You use a musical instrument to play music > > > in much the same way you use a game engine to play the > > > game. > > > > Horsepucky. It's not a generic game engine, it's a clone of a > > specific game. If you make a "musical instrument" that can only be > > used to play "Happy Birthday (To You)", guess what? You need license > > from its copyright holder. > > A game engine is to a game what a programming language is > to a program. > > If you have some evidence that no other compositions are possible > with this game engine, please present it. Description: An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe". If that doesn't ring alam bells for you, you are no guardian of Debian's collective well-being. > > > There might be some uniquely creative elements to some > > > musical instrument, which are copyrightable. Likewise, > > > there might be some uniquely creative elements in the game > > > engine which are copyrightable. We just haven't identified > > > any, yet. > > > > The "creativity" / "originality" threshold for copyrightability is > > quite low. I don't think the copyright holder on a complex simulation > > game such as Civilization or Transport Tycoon would have any > > difficulty establishing that copyrightable elements have been copied > > into admitted clones of their game engines. > > Ok, so you're saying you could rather easily find some of these > creative elements. > > Have fun, Dude, I am not the lawyer for whoever owns copyright to Transport Tycoon Deluxe these days. You wanna play with it, it's no skin off my nose. You insist that it goes into Debian, it's still not much skin off my nose -- IANADD and I'm sure the ftpmasters would drop it if a cease-and-desist letter ever hit. But if you haven't noticed, your credibility as an arbiter of Debian's compliance with legal constraints is in tatters. You really want to piss more of it away over this? - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the > > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't > > copyrightable in the first place. > > "Mise en scene", my friend, "mise en scene". We're not talking about changes to the Transport Tycoon Deluxe equivalent of MAP files. We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case. We're not talking a sequel here, we're talking about ephemeral changes in appearance. OpenTTD is not distributing art which merges with the original copyrighted work. Microstar was distributing arg with merged with the original copyrighted work. [Also, I continue to be annoyed by your personal attacks, but I refuse to believe that personal attacks have any redeeming value.] -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
Michael K. Edwards said: > On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about >> the game engine. > > We're talking about a theory of derivative work that doesn't require > literal copying. In the game context, that would be closer to "mise > en scene" than to "public performance" / "unauthorized recording", so > the process of establishing the fact of copying is a bit different. > But with regard to freeciv (and the hypothesized > OpenTTD-that-doesn't-need-bits-of-the-original), I think it > vanishingly unlikely (IANAL) that the copyright holder on the original > would fail to establish facts in support of infringement. > >> The game engine is to the game what a musical instrument >> is to music. You use a musical instrument to play music >> in much the same way you use a game engine to play the >> game. > > Horsepucky. It's not a generic game engine, it's a clone of a > specific game. If you make a "musical instrument" that can only be > used to play "Happy Birthday (To You)", guess what? You need license > from its copyright holder. I'm slightly confused by this. In the case of OpenTTD, you seem to be asserting that because OpenTTD has no use other than to combine with the copyrighted data files -- to present a scene similar to the original Transport Tycoon, the work is critically dependant on the copyright license of the data files. However, in the case of quagga, even though the quagga .deb (built with I_WANT_SSL but dynamically linked) has no use other than to combine with the copyrighted library files -- to present a scene of a unified, functional program, the conflicting license terms of the individual components do not cause a problem. Where does this distinction come from? --Joe -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I suppose it's also true that they don't have a copyright on the > > > functionality represented by this game, but functionality wasn't > > > copyrightable in the first place. > > > > "Mise en scene", my friend, "mise en scene". > > We're not talking about changes to the Transport Tycoon Deluxe > equivalent of MAP files. > > We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. > v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case. So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport Tycoon Deluxe engine as on the Nintendo Entertainment System, are there? And you think the factual situation is parallel to this: "The Game Genie merely enhances the audiovisual displays (or underlying data bytes) that originate in Nintendo game cartridges. The altered displays do not incorporate a portion of a copyrighted work in some form." > We're not talking a sequel here, we're talking about ephemeral > changes in appearance. Rubbish. Go read the website. > OpenTTD is not distributing art which merges with the original > copyrighted work. Microstar was distributing arg with merged > with the original copyrighted work. Rubbish. Micro Star was distributing user-created game "levels", and the only theory on which they were derivative works was "mise en scene" -- characters, objects, setting, etc. -- when played using Duke Nukem 3-D. > [Also, I continue to be annoyed by your personal attacks, but > I refuse to believe that personal attacks have any redeeming > value.] I acknowledge that the level of acrimony in some of my messages (not particularly in the one to which this is a response) has been on the high side. I will probably end up, in the long run, wishing that I had kept my temper systematically under better rein. But if you can't see that your credibility is at risk here -- in a way that it is not in the GPL debate alone -- after the comments that numerous third parties have made along the way, then it would be a kindness on my part to succeed in apprising you of that fact. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Joe Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm slightly confused by this. > > In the case of OpenTTD, you seem to be asserting that because OpenTTD has > no use other than to combine with the copyrighted data files -- to present > a scene similar to the original Transport Tycoon, the work is critically > dependant on the copyright license of the data files. > > However, in the case of quagga, even though the quagga .deb (built with > I_WANT_SSL but dynamically linked) has no use other than to combine with > the copyrighted library files -- to present a scene of a unified, > functional program, the conflicting license terms of the individual > components do not cause a problem. > > Where does this distinction come from? I'm glad you asked that. A game's "audiovisual displays" at run-time form a "literary or artistic work" of a kind that utility software does not. The division between "mise en scene" (non-literal elements that nevertheless form part of the protected expression in a literary work), "scenes a faire" (stock elements of the relevant genre), and "methods of operation" (intrinsically uncopyrightable, as are ideas and "scenes a faire") is therefore quite different. It's not the TTD data files whose copyright is infringed by run-time use with OpenTTD; it's the "mise en scene" of TTD as an interactive literary work. Micro Star v. FormGen is quite eloquent on this topic. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We're talking about something more like the Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. > > v. Nintendo of Am., Inc. case. > > So there are as wide a variety of games playable on the Transport > Tycoon Deluxe engine as on the Nintendo Entertainment System, are > there? And you think the factual situation is parallel to this: "The > Game Genie merely enhances the audiovisual displays (or underlying > data bytes) that originate in Nintendo game cartridges. The altered > displays do not incorporate a portion of a copyrighted work in some > form." It probably would be a good idea for the openttd people to make sure their engine can do other stuff -- maybe implement a ship-based game, maybe a photo organizer, whatever... That would certainly make their position stronger. But I'm dubious that increased commercial success of the affected engine is likely to decrease the success of an infringement suit. > > > We're not talking a sequel here, we're talking about ephemeral > > changes in appearance. > > Rubbish. Go read the website. Could you be more specific? I've looked at the web site, and didn't see anything indicating that changes to the game would not vanish as soon as it is run under the original engine. This was definitely NOT the case with Microstar's MAP files. > > OpenTTD is not distributing art which merges with the original > > copyrighted work. Microstar was distributing arg with merged > > with the original copyrighted work. > > Rubbish. Micro Star was distributing user-created game "levels", and > the only theory on which they were derivative works was "mise en > scene" -- characters, objects, setting, etc. -- when played using Duke > Nukem 3-D. As i see it, the judge was pointing out that the MAP files -- which represent the scenes -- had status similar to art. I don't see how that applies to openttd. Once again, when you use the official software, any supposed changes are invisible. > > [Also, I continue to be annoyed by your personal attacks, but > > I refuse to believe that personal attacks have any redeeming > > value.] > > I acknowledge that the level of acrimony in some of my messages (not > particularly in the one to which this is a response) has been on the > high side. I will probably end up, in the long run, wishing that I > had kept my temper systematically under better rein. But if you can't > see that your credibility is at risk here -- in a way that it is not > in the GPL debate alone -- after the comments that numerous third > parties have made along the way, then it would be a kindness on my > part to succeed in apprising you of that fact. I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility. I place a much higher priority on getting the facts straight. [As an aside: I believe that what you perceive as me being rude malicious or whatever is primarily matters of focus, though of course other issues like amount of time spent researching the issues and any underlying misunderstandings have an influence here.] Anyways, if I'm off base then people shouldn't be paying much attention to me -- if people believe I'm correct when I'm not, that serves them no good. On the other hand, if I am correct, I'd like to be understood -- again, people just blindly listening to me without thinking things through isn't going to do them much good. [And these same principles hold for anyone in any of these discussions -- people need to think things through for themselves even if it's not me that's saying those things.] In other words: credibility is somewhat (though not completely) overrated. Thanks, -- Raul
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It probably would be a good idea for the openttd people to > make sure their engine can do other stuff -- maybe implement > a ship-based game, maybe a photo organizer, whatever... > That would certainly make their position stronger. Not if it were an obvious fig leaf. Don't get me wrong; I think OpenTTD is cool, and if I could afford to risk a relapse into addiction, it might well be the simulation game that I most wanted to play. :-) But it's very much a refinement of another copyright holder's work, and belongs on an abandonware site with no assets to protect instead of on Debian's mirror network. > But I'm dubious that increased commercial success of the affected > engine is likely to decrease the success of an infringement suit. That's quantitatively true, both with respect to the "commercial / non-commercial" prong of the "fair use" test (assuming that defense was advanced) and with respect to the probable damages if the TTD copyright holder were to sue and win. > Could you be more specific? I've looked at the > web site, and didn't see anything indicating that > changes to the game would not vanish as soon > as it is run under the original engine. > > This was definitely NOT the case with Microstar's > MAP files. Of course if you take away the bits that _didn't_ come from the original copyright holder, you get the original game, whether those bits are engine or scenarios. If an enhanced engine can add things like "larger stations", "mammoth trains", "cost estimation with Shift", and "More currencies (including Euro introduction in 2002)", I suspect that there are non-trivial bits of mise en scene copied from the TTD engine to the OpenTTD engine. > As i see it, the judge was pointing out that the MAP files -- which > represent the scenes -- had status similar to art. I don't see how > that applies to openttd. > > Once again, when you use the official software, any supposed > changes are invisible. I will again quote: "In making this argument, Micro Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself ..." The threshold for "story" in this context is quite low, as may be evidenced by the protection unhesitatingly granted to a first-person shoot-em-up that the judge himself pointed out has a long line of antecedents back to Wolfenstein 3D. You really should read the whole opinion; when I first ran across it in 1998 or 1999, it was the first time I got a belly laugh out of a court decision. > I'm not particularly concerned about my credibility. I place a > much higher priority on getting the facts straight. > > [As an aside: I believe that what you perceive as me being rude > malicious or whatever is primarily matters of focus, though of > course other issues like amount of time spent researching the > issues and any underlying misunderstandings have an influence > here.] When you talk like that, you make me worry that all of the aspersions I have cast on your sincerity may have been unjustified. I've eaten a certain amount of crow, and may find that I am obliged to come back for seconds. > Anyways, if I'm off base then people shouldn't be paying much > attention to me -- if people believe I'm correct when I'm not, > that serves them no good. On the other hand, if I am correct, > I'd like to be understood -- again, people just blindly listening > to me without thinking things through isn't going to do them > much good. [And these same principles hold for anyone > in any of these discussions -- people need to think things > through for themselves even if it's not me that's saying those > things.] > > In other words: credibility is somewhat (though not > completely) overrated. Amen, brother -- up to a point. I wouldn't want a greater reputation for, say, drive-by flamings than I may have earned. (That's not a dig at Raul.) Note to Adam McKenna: at this point, I think it's fairer to say that Raul advances theories that are consistent with the status quo with respect to similar packages (e. g., freeciv) than to accuse him of pro-FSF bias. Cheers, - Michael
Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
"Michael K. Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 5/19/05, Raul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Also, I continue to be annoyed by your personal attacks, but > > I refuse to believe that personal attacks have any redeeming > > value.] > > I acknowledge that the level of acrimony in some of my messages (not > particularly in the one to which this is a response) has been on the > high side. I will probably end up, in the long run, wishing that I > had kept my temper systematically under better rein. Can you please do so now? There have already been multiple complaints about your behavior, and yet you persist in personal attacks. Here is a suggestion. Before you send any reply, wait a full day. In that interval, you might cool down a bit. You might also find time to shorten your posts. > But if you can't see that your credibility is at risk here -- in a > way that it is not in the GPL debate alone -- after the comments > that numerous third parties have made along the way, then it would > be a kindness on my part to succeed in apprising you of that fact. I have been contributing to debian-legal for quite some time, and I can't say that Raul's credibility is going anywhere. Yours, on the other hand, is not doing so well. You make some good arguments, but shoot yourself in the foot with your incessant personal attacks. I would be wary of going to you for advice, since you obviously have problems controlling your temper. Regards, Walter Landry [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RES: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/17/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You do have a point, too. But in the specific case of TTD, could the > game engine be *really* generic? I don't really think so. Maybe. But openttd is more generic than MicroStar's game mods. MicroStar's game mods were designed and distributed to be incorporated into FormGen's game, and nothing else,. If nothing else, openttd is also designed to be read and examined and modified by humans (in source code form). -- Raul
