Copyright

ID:274162
 
Jul 9 2001, 7:28 am
With all the recent discussion of copyright, I thought a few links might be useful/interesting for some people:

http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
http://www.google.com/ search?q=cache:Ti1kioiNtTY:www.control-g.com/ CFUL.00.html&hl=en

Of course, the ones who need to read these the most are the least likely to do so... I'm still torn as to what to do about my games. 3 of 4 are clear copyright violations (they are similar enough that they can't be called parodies, and therefore aren't protected under the right to parody). Do I remove them from the hub? Do I change them until they are clearly parodies and therefore protected? Hmmmm. Must think.


This forum post Copyright ©2001 Mike Heasley. Any reproduction, including storing of its ascii contents on any web server or in any brower's cache on any computer, is forbidden without my express written consent. Violators of this copyright must send me free food. And a Joe Satriani guitar.
Jul 9 2001, 8:22 am

This forum post Copyright ©2001 Mike Heasley. Any reproduction, including storing of its ascii contents on any web server or in any brower's cache on any computer, is forbidden without my express written consent. Violators of this copyright must send me free food. And a Joe Satriani guitar.



I'll see you in court! =)
Jul 9 2001, 9:25 am
On 7/9/01 10:28 am Air Mapster wrote:
With all the recent discussion of copyright, I thought a few links might be useful/interesting for some people:

http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
http://www.google.com/ search?q=cache:Ti1kioiNtTY:www.control-g.com/ CFUL.00.html&hl=en

Of course, the ones who need to read these the most are the least likely to do so... I'm still torn as to what to do about my games. 3 of 4 are clear copyright violations (they are similar enough that they can't be called parodies, and therefore aren't protected under the right to parody). Do I remove them from the hub? Do I change them until they are clearly parodies and therefore protected? Hmmmm. Must think.

That's exactly why I make games like Wabbit: The Updocalypse. :)
Jul 9 2001, 10:00 am
In response to LexyBitch
On 7/9/01 12:25 pm LexyBitch wrote:
Of course, the ones who need to read these the most are the least likely to do so... I'm still torn as to what to do about my games. 3 of 4 are clear copyright violations (they are similar enough that they can't be called parodies, and therefore aren't protected under the right to parody). Do I remove them from the hub? Do I change them until they are clearly parodies and therefore protected? Hmmmm. Must think.

That's exactly why I make games like Wabbit: The Updocalypse. :)

I used to have an obsession with being totally original in everything I did...and for some strange reason, I never finished anything.

Now I steal left and right, but always with ideas going through a furnace of transformation, and usually having started with a core unique idea then learning from other games for implementation ideas.

DragonSnot is the closest I am to a direct copying...but I think and hope that the overall feel of the game is very different from Pipe Dream. I don't think anyone could ever play the two and be confused about which is which.

I try to satisfy myself with the idea that DragonSnot is much less like Pipe Dream than First Person Shooter #32 is like FPS #4.
Jul 9 2001, 10:02 am
In response to Deadron
I try to satisfy myself with the idea that DragonSnot is much less like Pipe Dream than First Person Shooter #32 is like FPS #4.

If you can't figure out the difference between the Frag-o-Matic and the Frag-O-Matic, that's your problem.
Jul 9 2001, 10:52 am
In response to Deadron
On 7/9/01 1:00 pm Deadron wrote:
On 7/9/01 12:25 pm LexyBitch wrote:
Of course, the ones who need to read these the most are the least likely to do so... I'm still torn as to what to do about my games. 3 of 4 are clear copyright violations (they are similar enough that they can't be called parodies, and therefore aren't protected under the right to parody). Do I remove them from the hub? Do I change them until they are clearly parodies and therefore protected? Hmmmm. Must think.

That's exactly why I make games like Wabbit: The Updocalypse. :)

I used to have an obsession with being totally original in everything I did...and for some strange reason, I never finished anything.

Now I steal left and right, but always with ideas going through a furnace of transformation, and usually having started with a core unique idea then learning from other games for implementation ideas.

DragonSnot is the closest I am to a direct copying...but I think and hope that the overall feel of the game is very different from Pipe Dream. I don't think anyone could ever play the two and be confused about which is which.

I try to satisfy myself with the idea that DragonSnot is much less like Pipe Dream than First Person Shooter #32 is like FPS #4.

Hey, I resent that! First Person Shooter #32 incorporated some very unique and innovative gameplay ideas. Some people will tell you the Homing Shotgun is a blatant ripoff of First Person Shooter #19's Seeker Cannon, but they're completely different weapons. The Homing Proximity Mine Rifle was a little cheap though. It also featured several unprecedented AI breakthroughs, such as the way enemies can sense incoming rockets and pee their pants in defense, much better and more realistic than First Person Shooter #11's "run in circles around live grenades" defense or #27's "sense proximity mines and attempt to walk around only to give up after 2 steps and walk right into them."
Jul 9 2001, 11:23 am
On 7/9/01 10:28 am Air Mapster wrote:
With all the recent discussion of copyright, I thought a few links might be useful/interesting for some people:

http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
http://www.google.com/ search?q=cache:Ti1kioiNtTY:www.control-g.com/ CFUL.00.html&hl=en

Thanks for posting that, I just read most of the first one. Very interesting.

Anyways, one thing I saw in it was discussed here before:
"Fair Use"
"Effect on the potential market for or value of the protected work. The courts are most likely to find fair use where the new work is not a substitute for the copyrighted work."
(Was me putting that there copyright infringement? =)

I'm not pointing out that anyone was wrong or something, just pointing out that it's something open for discussion.
Jul 9 2001, 12:35 pm
On 7/9/01 10:28 am Air Mapster wrote:
With all the recent discussion of copyright, I thought a few links might be useful/interesting for some people:

http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
http://www.google.com/ search?q=cache:Ti1kioiNtTY:www.control-g.com/ CFUL.00.html&hl=en

Thanks for the pointers...I just printed all these out so I can read them and file them in a Copyright folder, for the occasional refresher...
Jul 9 2001, 3:42 pm
In response to Cinnom
"The courts are most likely to find fair use where the new work is not a substitute for the copyrighted work."

Before anyone gets their hopes up, I'd like to point out that this is completely different from: "If the new work isn't a substitute for the copyrighted one, the courts are likely to find fair use."

Logically, the sentence above reduces to:

(fair use) implies (not a substitute)

Rather than:

(not a substitute) implies (fair use.)

If you're not sure what that means, it's like the difference between saying, "Grass is usually green" and "Green things are usually grass."
Jul 9 2001, 3:45 pm
On 7/9/01 10:28 am Air Mapster wrote:
With all the recent discussion of copyright, I thought a few links might be useful/interesting for some people:

http://www.eff.org/pub/CAF/law/multimedia-handbook
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/fair_use.html
http://www.google.com/ search?q=cache:Ti1kioiNtTY:www.control-g.com/ CFUL.00.html&hl=en

Of course, the ones who need to read these the most are the least likely to do so... I'm still torn as to what to do about my games. 3 of 4 are clear copyright violations (they are similar enough that they can't be called parodies, and therefore aren't protected under the right to parody). Do I remove them from the hub? Do I change them until they are clearly parodies and therefore protected? Hmmmm. Must think.


<font size="-2">This forum post Copyright ©2001 Mike Heasley. Any reproduction, including storing of its ascii contents on any web server or in any brower's cache on any computer, is forbidden without my express written consent. Violators of this copyright must send me free food. And a Joe Satriani guitar.</font>


im sorry, you have to have the copywrite BEFOR we read the post...
Jul 9 2001, 5:04 pm
In response to jobe
On 7/9/01 6:45 pm jobe wrote:
im sorry, you have to have the copywrite BEFOR we read the post...

I'm curious. What are your sources? You need to tell them they are horribly wrong.
Jul 10 2001, 10:44 am
In response to jobe
<font size="-2">This forum post Copyright ©2001 Mike Heasley. Any reproduction, including storing of its ascii contents on any web server or in any brower's cache on any computer, is forbidden without my express written consent. Violators of this copyright must send me free food. And a Joe Satriani guitar.</font>

im sorry, you have to have the copywrite BEFOR we read the post...

How often do you see copyrights on the top of a page? I, for one, have never seen a copyright at the top of a page.

But, in court, this particular example would be "entrapment". Which is why I'd win if it came to that. =)
Jul 10 2001, 12:02 pm
In response to Shadowdarke
On 7/9/01 8:04 pm Shadowdarke wrote:
On 7/9/01 6:45 pm jobe wrote:
im sorry, you have to have the copywrite BEFOR we read the post...

I'm curious. What are your sources? You need to tell them they are horribly wrong.

no i dont, if you were to visit a web page... and the home page has a bunch of info on it... and you would have to follow a list of links befor you ever got to the copywrite.. and you copywrite said your not allowed to view the home page... you could not be liable for the first time you viewed the home page..
Jul 10 2001, 12:09 pm
In response to jobe
On 7/10/01 3:02 pm jobe wrote:
On 7/9/01 8:04 pm Shadowdarke wrote:
On 7/9/01 6:45 pm jobe wrote:
im sorry, you have to have the copywrite BEFOR we read the post...

I'm curious. What are your sources? You need to tell them they are horribly wrong.

no i dont, if you were to visit a web page... and the home page has a bunch of info on it... and you would have to follow a list of links befor you ever got to the copywrite.. and you copywrite said your not allowed to view the home page... you could not be liable for the first time you viewed the home page..

Yes you could be--for one, legal liability doesn't follow strict black and white rules; you could be held liable for anything regardless of circumstances. You just probably won't in most of those cases, and you probably wouldn't be in this case either, for a couple of reasons. One, inviting someone to do something they're not legally entitled to do (by, say, giving them a link to a website containing content they're not allowed to view) is entrapment, and while it's not an airtight defense, for things like this it's usually valid. Two, it's the court system, not the copyright holder, which has the final say on what does or doesn't violate their rights as a copyright holder, and it's unlikely that downloading and storing the contents of a page on a publicly available website via a web broswer would be found to constitute illegal reproduction.
Jul 10 2001, 3:43 pm
In response to jobe

no i dont, if you were to visit a web page... and the home page has a bunch of info on it... and you would have to follow a list of links befor you ever got to the copywrite.. and you copywrite said your not allowed to view the home page... you could not be liable for the first time you viewed the home page..

There are several things wrong with this example, Jobe.

1. A copyright has nothing to do with who can view the material... private companies and individuals cannot "classify" information. The purpose of a copyright is to make sure that you, the creator, are protected when you display your material... if you're not going to show anyone your stuff, the copyright is immaterial.

2. Similarly, no one is ever "liable" for viewing a homepage. (exception: if the content itself is illegal. Child porn, for instance. But this has nothing to do with a copyright.)

3. In the case of the copyright at the end of Mapster or Guy or whoever it was's message... the reason that no one's in trouble is because there's a term for this sort of situation. It is: "ridiculous." If it were meant seriously, it would be akin to throwing oneself in front of a car in order to sue the driver.
Jul 11 2001, 4:45 am
In response to jobe
On 7/10/01 3:02 pm jobe wrote:
On 7/9/01 8:04 pm Shadowdarke wrote:
On 7/9/01 6:45 pm jobe wrote:
im sorry, you have to have the copywrite BEFOR we read the post...

I'm curious. What are your sources? You need to tell them they are horribly wrong.

no i dont, if you were to visit a web page... and the home page has a bunch of info on it... and you would have to follow a list of links befor you ever got to the copywrite.. and you copywrite said your not allowed to view the home page... you could not be liable for the first time you viewed the home page..

All webpages are copyrighted, whether they display notice or not. When you publish content on the web, that establishes a copyright. I'll find the pertinent quotes for you later, but you can look it up here if you like:
U. S. Copyright Office Home Page

If you want to post a copyright notice so little boys who think they know the law are reminded that they can't claim your work, they have guidelines for that too.