Hugo Zork
John Menichelli
I've just uploaded hugozork.zip to the if-archive. This zip file
contains "hz.hug" (source code) and hz.hex (the compiled story file) for
the Hugo language. It can be found at:
ftp://ftp.gmd.de/if-archive/games/hugo
Hugo Zork is a port of Zork I to Hugo. Please ty it out and let me know
what you think.
John Menichelli
meni...@pixi.com
Julian Arnold
In article <3410A9...@pixi.com>, John Menichelli
This is really great! Adequately reconstructing a game from playing it,
rather than reading the source, is not easy, I know. This was how I
initially did _Pirate_, and that game is not nearly the size or
complexity of _Zork_.
The extra Hugo source is much appreciated too.
Jools
--
"For small erections may be finished by their first architects; grand
ones, true ones, ever leave the copestone to posterity. God keep me
from ever completing anything." -- Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
[ Please reply to jo...@arnod.demon.co.uk ]
Cardinal Teulbachs
Julian Arnold wrote:
> > Hugo Zork is a port of Zork I to Hugo. Please ty it out and let me know
> > what you think.
Isn't this illegal? The code is original, but (presumably) the text is
filched--to such a degree, completely in fact, as to fall far beyond the
boundaries of the "fair use" clause. Even the order and intent of the
text is the same.
Not being a lawyer, this is what I've always thought, anyhow. Otherwise
I would have long ago done a complete port of Beyond Zork, which exists
right now on my hard drive only in bits and pieces (crossing Zeno's
bridge in Hugo's 32-bit environment is something of a different--or at
least longer--experience than I had remembered :)
--Cardinal T
jken...@himail.hcc.com
In <341899...@earthlink.net>, Cardinal Teulbachs <card...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Julian Arnold wrote:
>
>> > Hugo Zork is a port of Zork I to Hugo. Please ty it out and let me know
>> > what you think.
>
>Isn't this illegal? The code is original, but (presumably) the text is
>filched--to such a degree, completely in fact, as to fall far beyond the
>boundaries of the "fair use" clause. Even the order and intent of the
>text is the same.
The legal status of the text of the Zork trilogy is shadowy, because it
is largely an adaptation of the original mainframe Zork, written by
somewhat the same people when they were students, and placed by
them on what is today called the Internet. For years, Compuserve
had (perhaps still has, somewhere) a version of that game, differing
only in that the word "Zork" had been replaced in the title and in
most of the game text by the word "Banshi".
The source of "Dungeon", a port to FORTRAN of the original Zork
(written in a LISP derivative called MDL) is widely available. "Hugo
Zork" might best be withdrawn and replaced by "Hugo Dungeon",
which should avoid all legal problems, and would be more impressive
to boot, since Mainframe Zork and "Dungeon" include nearly all of
Zork I, most of Zork II, and a sizeable part of Zork III.
Ethan Dicks
In article <341899...@earthlink.net>,
Cardinal Teulbachs <card...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>Julian Arnold wrote:
>
>> > Hugo Zork is a port of Zork I to Hugo.
>
>filched--to such a degree, completely in fact, as to fall far beyond the
>boundaries of the "fair use" clause. Even the order and intent of the
>text is the same.
I would have thought so, too, but with the Zork Trilogy being released
to freely-redistributable (but copyrighted) status, Activision has weakened
any claim that such infringement could cause financial damage. Now... a
half-assed port with mispelled text and bugs galore might be said to
confuse the consumer and damage the reputation that Activision has in
the eyes of the market, but that's a different kettle of fish than simple
copyright infringement.
OTOH... porting from the MIT copyrighted MDL sources (as Bob Supnik did to
produce Dungeon in FORTRAN) is much safer, legally speaking. Stay tuned
for future developments.
-ethan
--
Ethan Dicks http://www.infinet.com/~erd/
(dicks) at (math) . (ohio-state) . (edu) sellto: postmaster@[127.0.0.1]
harvestbot fodder: pres...@whitehouse.gov fcc...@fcc.gov root@[127.0.0.1]
Magnus Olsson
In article <5vbm1j$2ip$2...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
Ethan Dicks <di...@math.ohio-state.NO.SPAM.edu> wrote:
>In article <341899...@earthlink.net>,
>Cardinal Teulbachs <card...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>Julian Arnold wrote:
>>
>>> > Hugo Zork is a port of Zork I to Hugo.
>>
>>Isn't this illegal? The code is original, but (presumably) the text is
>>filched--to such a degree, completely in fact, as to fall far beyond the
>>boundaries of the "fair use" clause. Even the order and intent of the
>>text is the same.
>
>I would have thought so, too, but with the Zork Trilogy being released
>to freely-redistributable (but copyrighted) status, Activision has weakened
>any claim that such infringement could cause financial damage.
For the umpteenth time: financial damage has *nothing whatsoever* to do
with whether copyright has been infringemed or not. If a court finds
that you have infringed someone's copyright, then financial damage may
become interesting, but it's just as illegal whether anybody loses
anything from it or not.
--
Magnus Olsson (m...@df.lth.se, zeb...@pobox.com)
------ http://www.pobox.com/~zebulon ------
Not officially connected to LU or LTH.
Alan Conroy
On 12 Sep 1997 13:57:00 GMT, jken...@himail.hcc.com wrote:
>The source of "Dungeon", a port to FORTRAN of the original Zork
>(written in a LISP derivative called MDL) is widely available. "Hugo
>Zork" might best be withdrawn and replaced by "Hugo Dungeon",
>which should avoid all legal problems, and would be more impressive
>to boot, since Mainframe Zork and "Dungeon" include nearly all of
>Zork I, most of Zork II, and a sizeable part of Zork III.
I have looked at the source to Dungeon and, unfortunately, it is also
copyrighted. There is no indication that it was released to the
public domain. Thus, you are on no better legal ground with Dungeon
than with Zork.
This is why I didn't incorporate Dungeon into Adventure Builder's demo
game, Quest.
BTW: I am not a lawyer, nor do I particularly like them, but I respect
the problems they can cause...
- Alan Conroy
Julian Arnold
> > > what you think.
>
> Isn't this illegal?
You're not gonna be a party-pooper, are you?
> The code is original, but (presumably) the text is
> filched--to such a degree, completely in fact, as to fall far beyond the
> boundaries of the "fair use" clause. Even the order and intent of the
> text is the same.
>
> Not being a lawyer, this is what I've always thought, anyhow. Otherwise
> I would have long ago done a complete port of Beyond Zork, which exists
> right now on my hard drive only in bits and pieces
Ah good, I hate poop at parties.
Technically I believe yes, _Hugo Zork_ does infringe Activision's
copyright. OTOH _Zork_ has a (continuing) hazy history concerning it's
copyright status--the public domain _Dungeon_ incarnation, Activision's
recentish release of _Zork_ as freeware. Also, over the past two years
Activision has gone to some lengths to build a good relationship with
this group (though they never did that Acorn port of Nemesis I asked for
:(. I think it unlikely that they would now jeopardize that by suing
people. I also doubt if it would be worth their while for any other
reason.
_BZ_ is a slightly different case, as it doesn't have the history of
_Zork_, though I still think it would be silly for Activision to make a
big fuss about a Hugo (or anything else) port. I suspect the
Masterpieces collection marked the end of the Infocom games' commercial
run.
Still, I think it'd be wise to email Activision for permission before
stealing their games--it covers you against legal retaliation, and
they've been good to us recently, so I think its polite to repay them in
kind.
Now hurry up and release _Hugo BZ_ (although someone ought to start
writing original games in Hugo methinks).
rich
On 12 Sep 1997 20:08:37 +0200, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) wrote:
>For the umpteenth time: financial damage has *nothing whatsoever* to do
>with whether copyright has been infringemed or not. If a court finds
>that you have infringed someone's copyright, then financial damage may
>become interesting, but it's just as illegal whether anybody loses
>anything from it or not.
Yep, and it's not the current worth of the idea/product that is in question,
it's the future work. By impinging on Activisions Zork copyright EVEN IF NO
FINANCIAL LOSS OCCURS to Activision, you may be damaging their ability to market
_future_ games based on the Zork universe, and _that_ could be a lot of money.
Money is irrevelant to copyrights, other than in computing damages. Otherwise
there would be no point in copyrighting a free program. But there IS a point,
because the law protects you no matter how much you ask from the consumer.
-Rich
Kenneth Fair
In article <5vc0f5$khv$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus
Olsson) wrote:
>In article <5vbm1j$2ip$2...@mathserv.mps.ohio-state.edu>,
>Ethan Dicks <di...@math.ohio-state.NO.SPAM.edu> wrote:
>>In article <341899...@earthlink.net>,
>>Cardinal Teulbachs <card...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Julian Arnold wrote:
>>>
>>>> > Hugo Zork is a port of Zork I to Hugo.
>>>
>>>Isn't this illegal? The code is original, but (presumably) the text is
>>>filched--to such a degree, completely in fact, as to fall far beyond the
>>>boundaries of the "fair use" clause. Even the order and intent of the
>>>text is the same.
>>
>>I would have thought so, too, but with the Zork Trilogy being released
>>to freely-redistributable (but copyrighted) status, Activision has weakened
>>any claim that such infringement could cause financial damage.
>
>For the umpteenth time: financial damage has *nothing whatsoever* to do
>with whether copyright has been infringemed or not. If a court finds
>that you have infringed someone's copyright, then financial damage may
>become interesting, but it's just as illegal whether anybody loses
>anything from it or not.
Agreed. The main difference that financial damage makes is in the
calculation of recoverable damages, not whether the person is liable
or not.
Keep in mind, too, that Activision need not have completely rewritten
the Zork text or code for it to be copyrightable by them. They need only
provide some additional creative output for their work to be copyrightable.
I would agree that a safer course of action would be to withdraw Hugo Zork
and release Hugo Dungeon. Otherwise one might be open to liability.
And, as always, I am not a lawyer, and my advice is worth exactly what
you paid for it.
--
KEN FAIR - U. Chicago Law | <http://student-www.uchicago.edu/users/kjfair>
Of Counsel, U. of Ediacara | Power Mac! | CABAL(tm) | I'm w/in McQ - R U?
If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down?
We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.
Julian Arnold
In article <3419d1c5...@news.accessone.com>, Alan Conroy
<URL:mailto:al...@accessone.com> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 1997 13:57:00 GMT, jken...@himail.hcc.com wrote:
>
> >The source of "Dungeon", a port to FORTRAN of the original Zork
> >(written in a LISP derivative called MDL) is widely available. "Hugo
> >Zork" might best be withdrawn and replaced by "Hugo Dungeon",
> >which should avoid all legal problems, and would be more impressive
> >to boot, since Mainframe Zork and "Dungeon" include nearly all of
> >Zork I, most of Zork II, and a sizeable part of Zork III.
>
> I have looked at the source to Dungeon and, unfortunately, it is also
> copyrighted. There is no indication that it was released to the
> public domain. Thus, you are on no better legal ground with Dungeon
> than with Zork.
Yes, and I'm not 100% sure that the datafile on which I based _Pirate
Adventure_ is really PD. What a naughty bunch of criminals!
(Technically a lot of the games we download from the if-archive, ie,
those without explicit notes about distribution, aren't "legal.")
> BTW: I am not a lawyer, nor do I particularly like them, but I respect
> the problems they can cause...
I wish someone on this group would end their post with "I am a lawyer,
and this is the law."
Jools, who isn't a lawyer, but then how many lawyers can claim they're
Jools, eh?
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Julian Arnold saying...
[Snip]
> Technically I believe yes, _Hugo Zork_ does infringe Activision's
> copyright. OTOH _Zork_ has a (continuing) hazy history concerning it's
> copyright status--the public domain _Dungeon_ incarnation, Activision's
> recentish release of _Zork_ as freeware.
I don't know if Dungeon is really in the public domain. I thought
it was copyrighted by someone.
BTW: Zork I, II, and III are still copyrighted. Giving stuff away
for free doesn't negate the copyright in any fashion. The only way to
torpedo the copyright is to *explicitly* release it into the public
domain, which Activision has not done.
Of course, I could be wrong. Talk to a copyright lawyer for a
definitive answer and talk to several copyright lawyers for a good
confusion. <grin>
--
Fortran Dragon -==(UDIC)==- | "There isn't enough darkness in the world
-=={MDLAM}==- | to quench the light of one small candle."
Hidalgo Trading Company: http://www.ponyexpress.net/~xyzzy/index.html
Ethan Dicks
In article <MPG.e84a8c5b...@news.alt.net>,
Fortran Dragon <xy...@ponyexpress.net> wrote:
>My glass typewriter shows Julian Arnold saying...
>[Snip]
>> Technically I believe yes, _Hugo Zork_ does infringe Activision's
>> copyright. OTOH _Zork_ has a (continuing) hazy history concerning it's
>> copyright status--the public domain _Dungeon_ incarnation, Activision's
>> recentish release of _Zork_ as freeware.
>
> I don't know if Dungeon is really in the public domain. I thought
>it was copyrighted by someone.
Yes. The comments in the MDL source code say the copyright holder is MIT.
The comments in the FORTAN source code say the copyright holder is Infocom.
From qan old e-mail discussion with one of the Implementors, I was told that
when Infocom formed, they were told that MIT had no financial interest in
their works, so they could freely take them commercial, even though MIT
still held the copyright.
How's _that_ to muddle the issue?
Julian Arnold
> BTW: Zork I, II, and III are still copyrighted. Giving stuff away
> for free doesn't negate the copyright in any fashion. The only way to
> torpedo the copyright is to *explicitly* release it into the public
> domain, which Activision has not done.
Oh yes, I know. My point was that I suspect that the fact that
Activision have released Zork as freeware (even though still
copyrighted) would weaken there position if they ever took someone to
court for infringing their copyright. I mean I'm sure there's no
question that they still hold the copyright, but I think they'd be
awarded tiny damages, and told to stop wasting everyones time.
But then again, I have no idea.
I wonder if it would be too much to ask someone from Activision to make
some comment?
Jools
J. Holder
In a fit of lunacy, Ethan Dicks (di...@math.ohio-state.NO.SPAM.edu) escribed:
: Yes. The comments in the MDL source code say the copyright holder is MIT.
: The comments in the FORTAN source code say the copyright holder is Infocom.
If this means you have the MDL source, oh man oh man I would love a chance
to peruse that much MDL!!!! ;)
--
John Holder (jho...@frii.com) http://www.frii.com/~jholder/
Sr. Programmer Analyst, J.D.Edwards World Source Company, Denver, CO
http://www.jdedwards.com/
Magnus Olsson
In article <ant13230...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
Julian Arnold <piss...@having.too.much.spam> wrote:
>In article <MPG.e84a8c5b...@news.alt.net>, Fortran Dragon
><URL:mailto:xy...@ponyexpress.net> wrote:
>> BTW: Zork I, II, and III are still copyrighted. Giving stuff away
>> for free doesn't negate the copyright in any fashion. The only way to
>> torpedo the copyright is to *explicitly* release it into the public
>> domain, which Activision has not done.
>
>Oh yes, I know. My point was that I suspect that the fact that
>Activision have released Zork as freeware (even though still
>copyrighted) would weaken there position if they ever took someone to
>court for infringing their copyright. I mean I'm sure there's no
>question that they still hold the copyright, but I think they'd be
>awarded tiny damages,
Only if they claimed compensation for lost revenues on "Zork"
sales. But there are other ways that a copyright infringement can
cause damages.
>and told to stop wasting everyones time.
*Very* unlikely. Copyright law in most civilized countries is written
to protect the intellectual rights of authors to their creations, and
the courts take copryight infringements seriously. If they didn't,
then it would be OK not just for amateurs to plagiarize the pros, but
for the big corporations to steal the creations of amateurs, claiming
lack of commercial value as a defense.
Think of it: suppose *you* had published a game as freeware, that a
big software house published exactly the same game as their creation
without paying you a penny, and that the courts would tell you not to
waste their time by suing? "After all, you've given away the game for
free, so you're not damaged by XXX Inc. selling it."
Copyright law is really there to protect the little guy against the
big baddies, even though it sometimes seems the other way around.
(Not that either Activision not the author of "Hugo Zork" are
any baddies, of course :-) ).
John Menichelli
Magnus Olsson wrote:
> (Not that either Activision not the author of "Hugo Zork" are
> any baddies, of course :-) ).
Thanks!
I've already written to Volker about the discussion over here, and asked
his opinion on whether or not "Hugo Zork" should be removed from gmd.
I *did* put a notice in the game's header and in the on-line help file
that all text was copyright by Activision and was used without
permission. Then again, I suppose using the *entire* text of a game goes
somewhat beyond merely quoting bits and pieces for review purposes,
etc....
Anyway, it would probably be best if it was removed from gmd and all of
you (maybe what, one or two <g>) who downloaded it to erase it from your
hard drives.
In the future I'll try to come up with something original, but that's
not really my strong suit. (Whenever I play an adventure, I feel like
the guy who worked in the Patent Office. Every time he read a new
patent, he'd say, "Why didn't *I* think of that!)
Sorry for all the controversy.
John Menichelli
meni...@pixi.com
Martin Julian DeMello
John Menichelli (meni...@pixi.com) wrote:
: Magnus Olsson wrote:
: > (Not that either Activision not the author of "Hugo Zork" are
: > any baddies, of course :-) ).
: Thanks!
: I've already written to Volker about the discussion over here, and asked
: his opinion on whether or not "Hugo Zork" should be removed from gmd.
: I *did* put a notice in the game's header and in the on-line help file
: that all text was copyright by Activision and was used without
: permission. Then again, I suppose using the *entire* text of a game goes
: somewhat beyond merely quoting bits and pieces for review purposes,
: etc....
: Anyway, it would probably be best if it was removed from gmd and all of
: you (maybe what, one or two <g>) who downloaded it to erase it from your
: hard drives.
Seeing as how (i) you probably put a lot of effort into it and (ii) it
would be a nice resource/example for Hugo programmers, this would be
quite a shame. Why don't you try emailing Activision first (as others
have already advised) and seeing what their position is?
--
Martin DeMello
Remove the sep_field from my address to reply
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Julian Arnold saying...
[Snip]
> Activision have released Zork as freeware (even though still
> copyrighted) would weaken there position if they ever took someone to
> court for infringing their copyright. I mean I'm sure there's no
> question that they still hold the copyright, but I think they'd be
Nothing weakens a copyright. They are quite binary <grin>.
Julian Arnold
In article <341C21...@pixi.com>, John Menichelli
<URL:mailto:meni...@pixi.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway, it would probably be best if it was removed from gmd and all of
> you (maybe what, one or two <g>) who downloaded it to erase it from your
> hard drives.
Whoah! I don't think anyone wants to see that. Can't you just email
the folk at Activision and ask their permission (albeit after-the-fact)?
I believe the author of, um, _Spiritwrak_ did this, and they had no
problems, though obviously that was a somewhat different case.
Julian Arnold
In article <5vgrg3$ikm$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson
<URL:mailto:m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
> In article <ant13230...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
> Julian Arnold <piss...@having.too.much.spam> wrote:
>[...common sense...]
Hm, I'm really going to have to do some research and reinstate the
copyright question in the FAQ.
Unless someone who's done the research wants to do us all a favour and
share their wisdom.
Cardinal Teulbachs
mdem...@rice.edu (Martin Julian DeMello) made so bold as to state:
>John Menichelli (meni...@pixi.com) wrote:
>: I *did* put a notice in the game's header and in the on-line help file
>: that all text was copyright by Activision and was used without
>: permission. Then again, I suppose using the *entire* text of a game goes
>: somewhat beyond merely quoting bits and pieces for review purposes,
>: etc....
>: Anyway, it would probably be best if it was removed from gmd and all of
>: you (maybe what, one or two <g>) who downloaded it to erase it from your
>: hard drives.
>Seeing as how (i) you probably put a lot of effort into it and (ii) it
>would be a nice resource/example for Hugo programmers, this would be
>quite a shame. Why don't you try emailing Activision first (as others
>have already advised) and seeing what their position is?
Yes, do.
For my part, I'm certainly sorry, in a way, for bringing the whole
thing up, since Hugo Zork is clearly the result of a labor of love on
John's part and not of any criminal intent. As such, I sincerely hope
I didn't leave the impression that I was accusing him of acting from
base motives with my post.
--Cardinal T
I mean, what the hell kind of villain thwarts the hero's
progress with soup cans in the kitchen pantry?
--Russ Bryan
Are there any text games prominently featuring dinosaurs?
If not, does anyone besides me think it would be cool?
--Matthew Amster-Burton
"Hey! *I* wanted to be Envy!"
--joe dot mason
"Bathroom? Yeah. Go through that door, on the end
of the hall, on your left." "Pardon?" "South twice,
than east." "Ah."
--Clyde "Fred" Sloniker
Paul David Doherty
In article <5vgrg3$ikm$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
Magnus Olsson <m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
>In article <ant13230...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
>Julian Arnold <piss...@having.too.much.spam> wrote:
>>
>>Oh yes, I know. My point was that I suspect that the fact that
>>Activision have released Zork as freeware (even though still
>>copyrighted) would weaken there position if they ever took someone to
>>court for infringing their copyright. I mean I'm sure there's no
>>question that they still hold the copyright, but I think they'd be
>>awarded tiny damages,
>
>Only if they claimed compensation for lost revenues on "Zork"
>sales. But there are other ways that a copyright infringement can
>cause damages.
>
>>and told to stop wasting everyones time.
>
>*Very* unlikely. Copyright law in most civilized countries is written
>to protect the intellectual rights of authors to their creations, and
>the courts take copryight infringements seriously.
I'll have to side with Jools here. There have been *very* few court
cases over copyrights to old, out-of-print software. The only one
I can think of right now is the one where the author of the classic
Spectrum game "Elite" sued a magazine because they had put a snapshot of
the game on their cover CD without asking him or paying him royalties.
And he *did* lose the case, and he was told stop wasting everyone's
time. (Details available via Dejanews.)
Bottom line: Although the definition of copyright doesn't say anything
about lost revenues, they'll play a great role if you take the case
to court, and if you can't prove them (that is, if the game hasn't
been commercially available for years) you'll get thrown out of
court in no time.
-- Dave
Magnus Olsson
In article <5vijve$5...@joker.rz.hu-berlin.de>,
Paul David Doherty <h014...@joker.rz.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>I'll have to side with Jools here. There have been *very* few court
>cases over copyrights to old, out-of-print software.
Zork may be old, but it is not out of print. Activision is still
actively distributing it, albeit for free.
> The only one
>I can think of right now is the one where the author of the classic
>Spectrum game "Elite" sued a magazine because they had put a snapshot of
>the game on their cover CD without asking him or paying him royalties.
>
>And he *did* lose the case, and he was told stop wasting everyone's
>time. (Details available via Dejanews.)
Without having read theat information, I'd say it goes contrary to
everything I've ever heard about copyright law.
>Bottom line: Although the definition of copyright doesn't say anything
>about lost revenues, they'll play a great role if you take the case
>to court, and if you can't prove them (that is, if the game hasn't
>been commercially available for years) you'll get thrown out of
>court in no time.
If this is true, then it bods *extremely* ill for the little guy.
What you're saying is that the courts are sending the message that
copyright infringement of freeware is perfectly OK. In other words,
it's OK to steal the intellectual property of anyone stupid enough not
to charge a high price for it.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Fortran Dragon
My glass typewriter shows Paul David Doherty saying...
[Snip]
> Bottom line: Although the definition of copyright doesn't say anything
> about lost revenues, they'll play a great role if you take the case
> to court, and if you can't prove them (that is, if the game hasn't
> been commercially available for years) you'll get thrown out of
> court in no time.
In this case, Zork *is* commercial available, albeit as a part of a
collection.
jken...@himail.hcc.com
In <5visbi$aan$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>Without having read theat information, I'd say it goes contrary to
>everything I've ever heard about copyright law.
But not the old common-law principle: "De minibus non curat lex",
which applies in nearly all English-speaking jurisdictions (except,
perhaps, Scotland and Louisiana). Judges are allowed to throw out
cases that they think are silly and stupid and trivial, even if the
law is technically on the side of the plaintiff.
In the case of Zork, though, this would not apply, as Activision
can also argue trademark infringement, and trademark cases are,
for technical reasons, far less likely to be dismissed for being
trivial.
Julian Arnold
>
> In article <5vgrg3$ikm$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
> Magnus Olsson <m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
> >In article <ant13230...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
> >Julian Arnold <piss...@having.too.much.spam> wrote:
> >>
> >>Oh yes, I know. My point was that I suspect that the fact that
> >>Activision have released Zork as freeware (even though still
> >>copyrighted) would weaken there position if they ever took someone to
> >>court for infringing their copyright. I mean I'm sure there's no
> >>question that they still hold the copyright, but I think they'd be
> >>awarded tiny damages,
> >
> >Only if they claimed compensation for lost revenues on "Zork"
> >sales. But there are other ways that a copyright infringement can
> >cause damages.
> >
> >>and told to stop wasting everyones time.
> >
> >*Very* unlikely. Copyright law in most civilized countries is written
> >to protect the intellectual rights of authors to their creations, and
> >the courts take copryight infringements seriously.
>
Well no need to sound so reluctant about it! :)
> There have been *very* few court
> cases over copyrights to old, out-of-print software. The only one
> I can think of right now is the one where the author of the classic
> Spectrum game "Elite" sued a magazine because they had put a snapshot of
> the game on their cover CD without asking him or paying him royalties.
>
> And he *did* lose the case, and he was told stop wasting everyone's
> time. (Details available via Dejanews.)
>
> Bottom line: Although the definition of copyright doesn't say anything
> about lost revenues, they'll play a great role if you take the case
> to court, and if you can't prove them (that is, if the game hasn't
> been commercially available for years) you'll get thrown out of
> court in no time.
Damn, and to think I just posted a message backing down to Magnus. Note
to self: post less, read more replies first.
Jools, who's just posting drivel now
Magnus Olsson
In article <5vjpm2$o...@decgate.bridgewater.ne.hcc.com>,
<jken...@himail.hcc.com> wrote:
>In <5visbi$aan$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>>Without having read theat information, I'd say it goes contrary to
>>everything I've ever heard about copyright law.
>
>But not the old common-law principle: "De minibus non curat lex",
>which applies in nearly all English-speaking jurisdictions (except,
>perhaps, Scotland and Louisiana). Judges are allowed to throw out
>cases that they think are silly and stupid and trivial, even if the
>law is technically on the side of the plaintiff.
It applies to Swedish jurisdiction as well, in some form at least.
Having thought things over a bit, I suppose this can happen if
the copyright holder sues for economic damages when there obviously
aren't any. However, there are other kinds of damage, and there's
(in some countries, including, I think, the US) the matter of
criminal law as well. Some kinds of copyright infringement is a
criminal offence.
>In the case of Zork, though, this would not apply, as Activision
>can also argue trademark infringement, and trademark cases are,
>for technical reasons, far less likely to be dismissed for being
>trivial.
There are also a lot of other differences. Activision are still
distributing Zork and are using it for commercial purposes,
whereas the other case apparently was about a game that the copyright
owner hadn't been distributing for years. And re-implementing
a game in a new medium (if you can call a Hugo a different medium
from the original Infocom format) is not the same thing as simply
putting a copy of the original on a CD.
And it's up to the court anyway, *if* Activision sues, which I find
extremely unlikely. Just because the judge threw out a case under
different circumstances doesn't mean that it's safe to infringe other
copyrights.
Magnus Olsson
In article <ant15181...@arnod.demon.co.uk>,
Julian Arnold <piss...@having.too.much.spam> wrote:
>> Bottom line: Although the definition of copyright doesn't say anything
>> about lost revenues, they'll play a great role if you take the case
>> to court, and if you can't prove them (that is, if the game hasn't
>> been commercially available for years) you'll get thrown out of
>> court in no time.
I think this is an *extremely* dangerous generalization to make.
Remember that it's up to the court to decide such things on a case-by-case
basis.
And, besides, you do *not* want a big corporation suing you, no matter
how ill-founded the suit. If you're unlucky, you'll be broke from
lawyer's fees before the judge even has looked at the case.
>Damn, and to think I just posted a message backing down to Magnus. Note
>to self: post less, read more replies first.
Well, we can argue this until we're blue, without knowing what a real
judge would say about it if it were ever brought to court. The best
thing you can do is to point people at the various copyright law
resources on the net. And it's better to be cautious: some companies
don't like fans infringing on their copyrights, no matter how harmelss
it may seem, and some of them are apparently prepared to throw
considerable resources at defending their copyrights. You don't want
to be crushed by a legal juggernaught. (Not that Activision has shown
any such tendencies so far).
David Dyte
jken...@himail.hcc.com writes:
> But not the old common-law principle: "De minibus non curat lex",
> which applies in nearly all English-speaking jurisdictions (except,
> perhaps, Scotland and Louisiana). Judges are allowed to throw out
> cases that they think are silly and stupid and trivial, even if the
> law is technically on the side of the plaintiff.
Just to completely go off on a tangent- it's hardly surprising a common
law principle doesn't apply in Lousiana- it inherited French Statute Law,
not Common Law. I think. If you call South Africa an English speaking
jurisdiction, the same would apply there too, although I'm not sure quite
where their legal system came from.
- David Dyte
Who really shouldn't have gotten into this. Not at all. Not even a bit.
Darin Johnson
In article <5vbhnc$o...@decgate.bridgewater.ne.hcc.com>, jken...@himail.hcc.com wrote:
>"Hugo
>Zork" might best be withdrawn and replaced by "Hugo Dungeon",
>which should avoid all legal problems, and would be more impressive
>to boot, since Mainframe Zork and "Dungeon" include nearly all of
>Zork I, most of Zork II, and a sizeable part of Zork III.
Actually, I'm not so sure about the legal status of Dungeon. I wrote
the TADS Dungeon, but I'm still unsure about how legal it is. The
problem is that the Dungeon code itself says portions are copyright
by Infocom, which I assume Activision now owns. I've never gotten
around to contacting their lawyers though.
--
Darin Johnson
da...@usa.net.delete_me
Graham Nelson
In article <5vkajr$fj2$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, Magnus Olsson
<URL:mailto:m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
> Well, we can argue this until we're blue, without knowing what a real
> judge would say about it if it were ever brought to court. The best
> thing you can do is to point people at the various copyright law
> resources on the net. And it's better to be cautious: some companies
> don't like fans infringing on their copyrights, no matter how harmelss
> it may seem, and some of them are apparently prepared to throw
> considerable resources at defending their copyrights. You don't want
> to be crushed by a legal juggernaught. (Not that Activision has shown
> any such tendencies so far).
I don't wish to give any specific details, but I know of a case
in which the very same Activision has been sending threatening
lawyers' letters to a small company (which couldn't possibly stand
up to them in court) over a frankly doubtful claim of copyright
violation. It's not what the law says. It's how much money you
have, compared to how much Activision has. And do not confuse
the nice people who design Zork: The Grand Inquisitor with their
colleagues in slightly sharper suits down the corridor.
Besides, "Dungeon" is at least as good a name, and has some historical
roots.
--
Graham Nelson | gra...@gnelson.demon.co.uk | Oxford, United Kingdom
Larry Smith
John Menichelli wrote:
> Anyway, it would probably be best if it was removed from gmd and all of
> you (maybe what, one or two <g>) who downloaded it to erase it from your
> hard drives.
Why bother? If it is important to Activision, you will
get a Cease & Desist letter from a lawyer. So you take
it down then. If they don't send you a letter, then they
don't care. And at this point, they likely don't. The
value to them is in the Zork name and trademark. At the
worst, I'd suspect the only potential problem they might
have is your use of the Zork name. Change it to some-
thing like "Hugo.Dungeon", or "Another day, another
Zorkmid" or something and I'd bet it would never be worth
their lawyer's time.
--
.-. .---..---. .---. .-..-. |If Gov. Fields is right, I'll stand
| |__ | | || |-< | |-< > / |by him because he is right. If he's
`----'`-^-'`-'`-'`-'`-' `-' |wrong, I'll stand by him because he's
My opinions. Edit addr to reply|a Democrat.-Senator Stanley(D-Ky)1922
jken...@himail.hcc.com
In <5vka8d$eg6$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>And it's up to the court anyway, *if* Activision sues, which I find
>extremely unlikely. Just because the judge threw out a case under
>different circumstances doesn't mean that it's safe to infringe other
>copyrights.
But Activision might sue over the trademark, because there is a legal
rule that says the owner of a trademark _must_ "vigorously defend"
it, or lose all rights forever. That's why you occasionally hear stories
about companies like Disney suing tiny companies and individuals over
insignificant trademark violations. They don't like to do it; they know
it makes them look like bullies. But if your trademark is infringed by
B and then by C, and C can prove that you knew about B's infringement
and didn't take legal action, then your case against C is thrown out,
along with your cases against D, E, F....
Allen Garvin
In article <5vou12$vdq$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>,
Magnus Olsson <m...@bartlet.df.lth.se> wrote:
AFAIK "Dungeon" is not trademarked, so that would proabably be
safer, especially considering that neither Infocom nor Activision
have tried to stop all the Dungeon ports that have been floating
around since the 1970's.
Remember that Infocom got threatened with legal action when they were
going to release Zork as Dungeon. In the history of Zork articles, this
company was left nameless, but it was probably TSR, which has certainly
been far more litigious than Activision.
[ Oh, and my port of Dungeon to Inform is almost finished, but my controller
card semi-died, and now neither floppy drive works so it's for now stuck
on my home computer.]
Does anybody know if ACtivison had anything against the "Zork MUD"
that existed some years ago (and perhaps still exists)?
The people there got explicit permission from Activision. I think it
still exists, but last time I checked no one was doing any work on it,
nor was anyone interested in playing it.
--
Allen Garvin kisses are a better fate
--------------------------------------------- than wisdom
eare...@faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu
http://faeryland.tamu-commerce.edu/~earendil e e cummings
Magnus Olsson
In article <5vor1u$s...@decgate.bridgewater.ne.hcc.com>,
<jken...@himail.hcc.com> wrote:
>
>In <5vka8d$eg6$1...@bartlet.df.lth.se>, m...@bartlet.df.lth.se (Magnus Olsson) writes:
>>And it's up to the court anyway, *if* Activision sues, which I find
>>extremely unlikely. Just because the judge threw out a case under
>>different circumstances doesn't mean that it's safe to infringe other
>>copyrights.
>
>But Activision might sue over the trademark, because there is a legal
>rule that says the owner of a trademark _must_ "vigorously defend"
>it, or lose all rights forever. That's why you occasionally hear stories
>about companies like Disney suing tiny companies and individuals over
>insignificant trademark violations. They don't like to do it; they know
>it makes them look like bullies.
Good point. Which means that if "Hugo Zork" is widely distributed, the
legal department at Activision may draw the conclusion that they
*have* to sue. The "Zork" trademark is probably valuable to them, now
that they're releasing new graphic Zork adventures.
AFAIK "Dungeon" is not trademarked, so that would proabably be safer,
especially considering that neither Infocom nor Activision have tried
to stop all the Dungeon ports that have been floating around since the
1970's.
Does anybody know if ACtivison had anything against the "Zork MUD"
that existed some years ago (and perhaps still exists)?
--
Cardinal Teulbachs
You guys are making this much too complicated. Here's what you do: you
write a short game entitled "The Whole World Loves Activision!!!"
about a guy in a white hat named Activision who kicks the butts of a
bunch of evil monsters (named MicroProse, Sierra, and whatnot) who are
trying to erase Fun from the world. Then you get Magnus or Plotkin or
somebody to write a suitably over-the-top, ingratiating review which
you spread far and wide over the Internet--Happy Puppy, Games Domain,
you paste the thing everywhere. *Then* you write to Activision, asking
whether it might be ok if you used their Zork name just this one
little time...
--Cardinal T
Erik Max Francis
tes...@cibc.ca wrote:
> As far as the legality of the issue goes (and here I pull out
> the "I am not a lawyer" rubber stamp, too), we're in the territory of
> a
> non-commercial reproduction--and that's probably the right word--of a
> non-commercial piece of work.
It would be copyright infringement, plain and simple. It clearly
constitutes a derivative work, and as such is protected under copyright.
> Any "damages" would relate to lost revenue
> from Zork itself--and in this case there isn't any--or potential loss
> of
> revenue from future "Zork: ______" games due to John's having so fully
> dragged the good Zork name through the mud--which he didn't, of
> course:
> Hugo Zork is quite excellelntly done.
Nonsense. There are two types of damages in a copyright case; the one
you are talking about is actual damages, where the copyright holder
calculates how much revenue was lost due to the infringement. This is
not hard and fast; one could even imagine a good lawyer estimating the
number of users who have a copy, multiplying that by some number to
indicate a cost per unit, and demanding that amount, even though this
wasn't being sold.
Beyond that, however, are statutory damages, which are awardable to the
infringed party in the event that the copyright was registered within
three months of publication, and are awardable up to $100,000. Yes, you
read that right.
> Zork is obviously a special case; hopefully Activision, if asked,
> would
> recognize it as such.
Why? If they own the copyright, there's nothing special about it.
The bottom line here is: Not making a profit off your infringement is
not just a poor defense, it is _no defense_.
--
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE / mailto:m...@alcyone.com
Alcyone Systems / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, California, United States / icbm://37.20.07n/121.53.38w
\
"War is like love; / it always finds a way."
/ Bertolt Brecht
David Dyte
Has anyone else been reading this thread and thinking about
changing their name to Hugo Zork? No? Oh well...
- David Dyte
Who really is very sorry. Very sorry indeed.
Richard G Clegg
Magnus Olsson (m...@bartlet.df.lth.se) wrote:
: In article <5vijve$5...@joker.rz.hu-berlin.de>,
: > The only one
: >I can think of right now is the one where the author of the classic
: >Spectrum game "Elite" sued a magazine because they had put a snapshot of
: >the game on their cover CD without asking him or paying him royalties.
: >
: >And he *did* lose the case, and he was told stop wasting everyone's
: >time. (Details available via Dejanews.)
: Without having read theat information, I'd say it goes contrary to
: everything I've ever heard about copyright law.
Well, while I'm no legal expert, if the case was tried in Britain, we
have a certain law about "trivial and vexatious" litigation. Basically,
a case can be thrown out of court by the judge if he decides that the
person bringing the prosecution is wasting everyone's time. (e.g. a
copyright violation which really nobody in their right mind would be
bothered about - such as a photo of a years old game.) It's an old
law but it cuts down the number of damn stupid cases of suing people.
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Dept. of Mathematics (Network Control group) Uni. of York.
email: ric...@manor.york.ac.uk
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
athol-brose
In article <60div5$kt1$3...@netty.york.ac.uk>,
Richard G Clegg <ric...@manor.york.ac.uk> wrote:
>have a certain law about "trivial and vexatious" litigation. Basically,
>a case can be thrown out of court by the judge if he decides that the
>person bringing the prosecution is wasting everyone's time. (e.g. a
>copyright violation which really nobody in their right mind would be
>bothered about - such as a photo of a years old game.) It's an old
>law but it cuts down the number of damn stupid cases of suing people.
Er... a Spectrum "snapshot" is a file containing a disk image -- in other
words, a snapshot of Elite would be the entire game, in a form that you
could run it on an emulator with.
Doesn't seem especially trivial litigation to me.
--
r. n. dominick -- cinn...@one.net -- http://w3.one.net/~cinnamon
why so full of sorrow, no tomorrow?