Magic Realm...so, um, how do you play this?
EChoota
that spells out how this game plays? I've never had a harder time reading a
rulebook than with this game. I feel like I'm 9 years old again with my new
D&D Basic Set, trying to understand the basic mechanics of game playing.
GREG SCHLOESSER
The 1st edition rulebook was a mess ... and that's how I learned how to play.
The 2nd edition rulebook helped a bit .. but not much. My best advice is to
re-package the game, sell it, or store it in a deep, dark corner of your closet,
never to see the light of day again. It is abysmal.
The Westbank Gamers recently played this one due to the insistence of one of our
members. It was a nightmarish experience.
Avoid this one like the plague.
--
Greg J. Schloesser
The Westbank Gamers: http://home.earthlink.net/~gschloesser/
The Maverick
>
> The Westbank Gamers recently played this one due to the insistence of one of our
> members. It was a nightmarish experience.
>
> Avoid this one like the plague.
All I can say is: what a bunch of wimps! ;-)
Actually, there is a whole mailing list of insane fanactics (on the run
from mental health authorities) who still discuss and play Magic Realm.
I might even be on the list, but I'm not admitting it now!
You can sign up for the mailing list at the FAQ location. The FAQ is
located at:
http://home1.gte.net/danielt3/mr-faq.html
Don't throw in the towel! There really is some good gaming in Magic
Realm (second edition, once you learn how to play it...)
the Mav
--
THE SPACE AND FANTASY GAMER'S GUIDE http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/
The guide is a comprehensive game index for the magazines Space Gamer,
Fantasy Gamer, Ares, Interplay, Nexus and VIP of Gaming.
NEW! INTERPLAY #1 will be given away with the first 25 copies sold!
dani...@gte.net
(EChoota) wrote:
>Are there any player made FAQs, web pages, rewriting or the rules or anything
>that spells out how this game plays? I've never had a harder time reading a
>rulebook than with this game. I feel like I'm 9 years old again with my new
>D&D Basic Set, trying to understand the basic mechanics of game playing.
Congratulations on purchasing one of the best, non-GM role-playing games
on the market! As mentioned in the rec.games.board FAQ, we have a FAQ, a
few examples, a mailing list, and at least one pbem game going on right
now.
Check out my homepage (listed below) for more information. We will be
happy to help you learn the game and answer any questions you may have.
--
Daniel T.
dani...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/danielt3/
jdb...@my-dejanews.com
gschl...@earthlink.net wrote:
> EChoota wrote:
>
> > Are there any player made FAQs, web pages, rewriting or the rules or
anything
> > that spells out how this game plays? I've never had a harder time reading a
> > rulebook than with this game. I feel like I'm 9 years old again with my new
> > D&D Basic Set, trying to understand the basic mechanics of game playing.
>
>
Agreed. The rule book should be in a game designer's handbook as an
example of what NOT to do. Have you found yourself re-reading the same
sentence ten times?
Hey, but it's Avalon Hill (and I *like* Avalon Hill) and it's fantasy (and
I *like* fantasy.) Too bad A + B <> A good game.
Jimbo
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Torben AEgidius Mogensen
>EChoota wrote:
>> Are there any player made FAQs, web pages, rewriting or the rules or anything
>> that spells out how this game plays? I've never had a harder time reading a
>> rulebook than with this game. I feel like I'm 9 years old again with my new
>> D&D Basic Set, trying to understand the basic mechanics of game playing.
>The 1st edition rulebook was a mess ... and that's how I learned how to play.
>The 2nd edition rulebook helped a bit .. but not much.
Actually, a better idea is to find a group that knows the game and
play with them a few times to get the feel of the game.
> My best advice is to
>re-package the game, sell it, or store it in a deep, dark corner of your closet,
>never to see the light of day again. It is abysmal.
>Avoid this one like the plague.
It isn't bad. The complexity can be likened with some of the more
complex role playing games (AD&D or Rolemaster), but the difference is
that instead of a GM, dice and tables determines what happens. It is,
however, probably one of these games that get very different reactions
from different people - some love it and some hate it.
Torben Mogensen (tor...@diku.dk)
AlfonzoS
and takes a long time to set up. Your best bet is to have someone teach it to
you. The rulebook, especially the first edition one, is of little help.
If you want to play a good, fast fantasy game, I recommend Mystic Wood by Arial
and Avalon Hill.
May the dice roll in your favor,
Alfonzo Smith
Philip Dutre
In article <19981115090821...@ng-fb1.aol.com>, alfo...@aol.com
(AlfonzoS) writes:
> Magic Realm is, by far, the best game I never play. It's complicated, complex
> and takes a long time to set up. Your best bet is to have someone teach it to
> you. The rulebook, especially the first edition one, is of little help.
>
> If you want to play a good, fast fantasy game, I recommend Mystic Wood by
> Arial
> and Avalon Hill.
... except for the fact the Mystic Wood is extremely outdated. The whole
concept of gradually discovering some lay-out is used much better in
DungeonQuest (Games Workshop, but also OOP), or even Dungeon (TSR). Heck,
Talisman is even better than Mystic Wood.
Magic Realm has the same problem. It may have been novel in 1979, but now
there are games out there that do a much better job.
Phil
--
=======================================================================
Philip Dutre Program of Computer Graphics Cornell University
ph...@graphics.cornell.edu http://www.graphics.cornell.edu/~phil/
=======================================================================
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
Philip Dutre <ph...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in article
<72nj0g$p...@phoenix.graphics.cornell.edu>...
> ... except for the fact the Mystic Wood is extremely outdated. The whole
> concept of gradually discovering some lay-out is used much better in
> DungeonQuest (Games Workshop, but also OOP), or even Dungeon (TSR).
Having not played these last two games, I cannot comment on their relative
merits WRT Mystic Wood. But Mystic Wood is an excellent game, and is in no
way "outdated".
> Heck, Talisman is even better than Mystic Wood.
Whoa. Talisman is not better than Monopoly (TM), or even the card game
"War". We're not even talking in the same universe here. Heck, Roborally
is better than Talisman...
TLDreaming
punched out. It has been sitting in a box for over 10 years! You guys are not
exactly making it sound easy to learn. Uh...I'll sell it for a new copy of
Warhammer's intro figures game. Yeah, that's it!
TLDreaming
We all agreed: MAJOR SUCK. Very boring and Lame.
jjs
: BTW. I remember buying a playing "Mystic Wood" in high school (early 80's).
I haven't played it in years, nor do I intend to. But there are clearly
people on this group who still enjoy it. Get over it.
TLDreaming
>people on this group who still enjoy it. Get over it.
Didn't mean to hurt their feelings. If I did, I apologize. However, they
don't need YOU to defend them. I'm sure they'll let me know.
Let me rephrase my comments for your approval.
How about:
"Several people have commented on Mystic Wood as an alternative to Magic Realm.
I remember playing the game over a decade ago, and although my memory is a bit
dim (please forgive me), as I recall, my friends and I didn't enjoy the game at
all. Therefore, I'd consider Magic Realm and others a better choice. However,
I like several games that others do not enjoy, and so I acknowledge that my
opinion may differ from yours."
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
TLDreaming <tldre...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19981116153131...@ng94.aol.com>...
It has been about a thousand years since I last played this game, but I
don't remember it being particularly difficult. I did learn it from other
players, and did not attempt to learn it from paper (I don't own it).
Since we don't play it now, nor do I remember it by name, I assume it did
not impress me particularly well, but my group and I are particularly hard
on games, so that should not affect your trial.
BTW, we think MW is a fun and elegant beer and pretzels game, suitable for
late night play, or for teaching basic game concepts to newbies (such as
our children...). It is not rocket science...
Shadow
>concept of gradually discovering some lay-out is used much better in
>Talisman is even better than Mystic Wood.
>Magic Realm has the same problem. It may have been novel in 1979, but now
>there are games out there that do a much better job.
So are there any in-print games that are similar to MR, but better?
Shadow
Klaus Ole Kristiansen
>BTW. I remember buying a playing "Mystic Wood" in high school (early 80's).
>We all agreed: MAJOR SUCK. Very boring and Lame.
I once had a friend who loved this game. We used to play it enough.
Unfortunately I haven't seen him since he was 6. He must be 11 now.
Magic Realm, OTOH is a bit more complicated. I like it, but have
difficulty finding people to play with.
Klaus O K
jdb...@my-dejanews.com
"Hannah Family" <kha...@pyramid.net> wrote:
>
> Philip Dutre <ph...@graphics.cornell.edu> wrote in article
> <72nj0g$p...@phoenix.graphics.cornell.edu>...
>
>
> "War". We're not even talking in the same universe here. Heck, Roborally
> is better than Talisman...
>
Why, because in Talisman and Roborally you just kind of move around
without thought to the many variables and strategic situations each
game offers?
I flipped a counter in Magic Realm -- cool! The mystery. What is it?
I flipped a card in Talisman -- that's all luck and boring too.
I rolled a two as my first roll in Titan -- that's unlucky.
I landed on Park Place, then rolled a two -- that was strategic planning,
because I saved my money to buy them.
I flipped a counter in Magic Realm -- yippie, skippie.
I flipped a card in Talisman -- hmmm, interesting, what do I wish for --
I'm low in strength, but I'm down to one life.
I rolled a two as my first roll in Titan -- not great, but I can position
myself away from the enemy army better going left.
I landed on Park Place, then rolled a two -- <victory luck dance>
Obviously dice introduce an element of luck but don't necessarily diminish
the strategy or fun. That leaves personal taste. But you already knew
that!
Jimbo
Hannah Family
--
Dna Dan
jdb...@my-dejanews.com wrote in article
<72s3hs$qfp$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> > Whoa. Talisman is not better than Monopoly (TM), or even the card game
> > "War". We're not even talking in the same universe here. Heck,
Roborally
> > is better than Talisman...
>
> Why, because in Talisman and Roborally you just kind of move around
> without thought to the many variables and strategic situations each
> game offers?
Fun stuff clipped...
I just tend not to like games where the movement system is based on luck.
I prefer free movement with some kind of luck-affected consequences
involved (the luck can be introduced by dice [SL] or the interactions of
multiple players [Dune]).
Martina böhme
AlfonzoS schrieb:
> Magic Realm is, by far, the best game I never play. It's complicated, complex
> and takes a long time to set up. Your best bet is to have someone teach it to
> you. The rulebook, especially the first edition one, is of little help.
>
> If you want to play a good, fast fantasy game, I recommend Mystic Wood by Arial
> and Avalon Hill.
I agree totally with you, I have the suspicion Magic Realm is a really good game
once you´re into it.Unfortunately aren´t there many people I know who like to
spend a weekend in working out the rules and than spend the next weekend playing
it.
I get the feeling that it doesn´t get the attention it should get mainly because
nobody ever played it properly with full rules several times (me included!).
If you like Mystic Wood, do you also enjoy Sourcers cave?
jdb...@my-dejanews.com
"Hannah Family" <kha...@pyramid.net> wrote:
>
>
> I just tend not to like games where the movement system is based on luck.
> I prefer free movement with some kind of luck-affected consequences
> involved (the luck can be introduced by dice [SL] or the interactions of
> multiple players [Dune]).
Yep, it's a matter of taste. Personally I get bored of any ONE kind of game
if I play it too long. After a long Adv Civ. game, I wanna roll the
bones. After "Yahtzee in the Pacific," I wanna play chess.
Talisman movement is affected by the die, but besides choosing clockwise
or counter-clockwise, you can often avoid rolling (spells, events,
abilities, etc...) And no one roll is going to make or break you (unlike
the hotel on Boardwalk.) You can even die (pun intended) in the game
and still win.
Don't get me wrong, Talisman isn't on my top ten list or anything. But
after recently defending it against the people who said it would be easy
to program its AI, I realize just how much strategy there is in it. And
if I'm in the mood for something medium-light, Talisman often fits the
bill.
If a game is judged by win satisfaction, Talisman is high on my list.
Timing, build-up, daring and, yes, a little luck. Lucky rolls can
be memorable, you just don't want the whole game built around them. In
my opinion, Talisman is not.
Play Talisman against some good players who know and enjoy the game. Just
like if I played Magic Realm with the same criteria, you might even
have fun in spite of yourself. The fun of games often is the enthusiasm of
its particpants (As a bizarre and not quite accurate comparison (since
Talisman is NOT lame! :-)), the movie "Rocky Horror Picture
Show" is lame in and of itself, but comes to life when you're time
warping with the entire audience and being showered with rice.)
Let me know, I'll let you know. :-)
Shadow
:Timing, build-up, daring and, yes, a little luck. Lucky rolls can
:be memorable, you just don't want the whole game built around them. In
:my opinion, Talisman is not.
The problem I have with Talisman is that bad strategy + good luck usually
will win over good strategy + bad luck. If a person consistently gets
to attack creatures and build up stats, while others don't get good draws,
the first person will win.
However, I still enjoy playing the game from time to time because it doesn't
require a lot of deep thought. We usually play with multiple characters
so you can try to use them together to win. (plus it adds more carnage to
the game)
Shadow
jdb...@my-dejanews.com
pme...@cse.unl.edu (Shadow) wrote:
>
> The problem I have with Talisman is that bad strategy + good luck usually
> will win over good strategy + bad luck. If a person consistently gets
> to attack creatures and build up stats, while others don't get good draws,
> the first person will win.
Hmmm... Many a player has been "toaded" from an otherwise
overwhelming position. Sometimes you can "steal the win" while they
are dinking around somewhere else (especially if you have the expansion
sets (I play the '80s edition BTW.)) Sometimes you can steal a key
item they have ("the Acquisition, what a spell" ;-D). Sometimes the
Hag will cause all of their key followers to leave them. Sometimes you
can cause them to lose their lives despite their 13 strength. Etc...
From my perspective b.s. and g.l. "occasionally" wins over
g.s. and b.l. Just enough to make the game interesting, IMO.
Eric N. Coffey
1979, and played it all summer long for a couple of years. It's very well
suited for solo play.
Needless to say, I never have time to play it anymore. Alfonzo is right,
you should get your hands on the 2nd Edition Rules; I don't know if they can
be found due to the whole AH-Hasbro situation.
Another resource is the original issue of The General from 1979 devoted to
the game. Maybe you can find a reprint of it somewhere. It's got some
great examples of the combat, movement and magic systems in action.
Perhaps you can find some players at the next gaming con near you?
Good luck,
--Eric
AlfonzoS wrote in message <19981115090821...@ng-fb1.aol.com>...
>Magic Realm is, by far, the best game I never play. It's complicated,
complex
>and takes a long time to set up. Your best bet is to have someone teach it
to
>you. The rulebook, especially the first edition one, is of little help.
>
>If you want to play a good, fast fantasy game, I recommend Mystic Wood by
Arial
>and Avalon Hill.
>
Jerry the Slightly Mad
Eric N. Coffey wrote in message <74f7qh$oum$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
>It is a fantastic game. I bought it when I was 12, when it came out in
>1979, and played it all summer long for a couple of years. It's very well
>suited for solo play.
>
>Needless to say, I never have time to play it anymore. Alfonzo is right,
>you should get your hands on the 2nd Edition Rules; I don't know if they
can
>be found due to the whole AH-Hasbro situation.
>
>Another resource is the original issue of The General from 1979 devoted to
>the game. Maybe you can find a reprint of it somewhere. It's got some
>great examples of the combat, movement and magic systems in action.
>
>Perhaps you can find some players at the next gaming con near you?
>
>Good luck,
>
>--Eric
>
I have the General issue mentioned above and would be happy to swap a
photocopy of that article for a photocopy of the 2nd. Edition rules.
Please let me know..
Jerry the Slightly Mad...
Larry Welborn
second edition rules?
Larry
--
Note: To Reply remove "Not" from the e-mail address
MJ ,Schneidr
<larryw...@notmindspring.com> wrote:
> With the demise of AH, does anyone know where one can obtain a copy of the
> second edition rules?
Could somebody just post the dang things?
(Like Hasbro is going to give a damn....)
Replace stuff before @ with mike1.
"[America] has turned into Film Noir, complete with murder victims
and psychotic conspirators in unexpected positions of authority."
-- Bill Kasper =====================================================
Victim not shot with a .38: http://www.federal.com/oct26-98/Story01.html
Coup USA: gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/00/SIGS/JFK/FAQ/faq-daeron/3-faq
Why were the black GIs murdered? The Slaughter: http://www.theslaughter.com/
They screwed people left and right: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt
David R L Porter
from blizz...@DELETEwintTHISernet.com (MJ ,Schneidr) contains
these words:
> In article <366CA09E...@notmindspring.com>, Larry Welborn
> <larryw...@notmindspring.com> wrote:
> > With the demise of AH, does anyone know where one can obtain a copy of the
> > second edition rules?
> Could somebody just post the dang things?
> (Like Hasbro is going to give a damn....)
Anyone fancy arguing the toss with Hasbro's lawyers?
Not me ....
--
Best wishes,
David.
david....@zetnet.co.uk
+ + + + + + + + + + + + +
O flute that throbs with the thanksgiving breath
Of convalescents on the shores of death.
O bless the freedom that you never chose ...
O wear your tribulation like a rose.
(W. H. Auden, 'Anthem for St Cecilia's Day')
Jerry the Slightly Mad
David R L Porter wrote in message <199812081...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>
>> > With the demise of AH, does anyone know where one can obtain a copy of
the
>> > second edition rules?
>
>
>> Could somebody just post the dang things?
>
>> (Like Hasbro is going to give a damn....)
>
>Anyone fancy arguing the toss with Hasbro's lawyers?
>
>Not me ....
>--
I REALLY don't see what could be illeagal about it. The only people that
could use the rules are those that bought the game. Which, like a software
update, SHOULD be supplied to everyone that bought the first edition for
free. (in a dream world anyway) Hence, what would Hasbro prosecute you
for? Boy everybody is sue happy......
Jerry the Slightly Mad...
R. Maker
Not prosecute (unless copies were being SOLD). But they would have to
sue.
Under US copyright and trademark law, if you don't defend your rights
you can lose them.
Ross
David desJardins
> Under US copyright and trademark law, if you don't defend your rights
> you can lose them.
That's not true. Copyright persists regardless of whether you defend
it. However, if you fail to defend your copyright you might be limited
in the types of damages you can recover.
David desJardins
Wgreview
No one seems to have pointed out that the 2nd edition rules are
80 full-sized pages of relatively small print, with pictures, tables, etc.
Someone in another post complained that Hasbro made him take down
an unauthorized computer version of Risk. How do you think they'd
react to someone putting up their 80-page rulebook on a web site?
Michael Keller, World Game Review, 1747 Little Creek Drive, Baltimore, MD
21207-5230, <http://members.aol.com/wgreview/index.html>
Kevin J. Maroney
>Not prosecute (unless copies were being SOLD). But they would have to
>sue.
Not true--publication, even for free, of a copyrighted work without
the permission of the copyright's owner is both a tort and a criminal
offense.
Actually, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "prosecute" and
"sue" that I don't understand and that I don't think exists.
>Under US copyright and trademark law, if you don't defend your rights
>you can lose them.
As David DesJardins already said, copyrights, unlike trademarks,
persist even if you don't actively protect them.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | Crossover Technologies | kmar...@crossover.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Jerry the Slightly Mad
R. Maker wrote in message <366D43...@4dintsys.com>...
>Jerry the Slightly Mad wrote:
>>
>> David R L Porter wrote in message <199812081...@zetnet.co.uk>...
>> >
>> >> > With the demise of AH, does anyone know where one can obtain a copy
of
>> the
>> >> > second edition rules?
>> >
>> >
>> >> Could somebody just post the dang things?
>> >
>> >> (Like Hasbro is going to give a damn....)
>> >
>> >Anyone fancy arguing the toss with Hasbro's lawyers?
>> >
>> >Not me ....
>> >--
>>
>> I REALLY don't see what could be illeagal about it. The only people
that
>> could use the rules are those that bought the game. Which, like a
software
>> update, SHOULD be supplied to everyone that bought the first edition for
>> free. (in a dream world anyway) Hence, what would Hasbro prosecute you
>> for? Boy everybody is sue happy...
>
>sue.
>you can lose them.
>
Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
companies. They shouldn't even apply to the consumer, who in all rights,
has nothing to gain or loose by violating a copyright law. I'm certainly
not going to make any money "selling" 2nd. edition rulebooks for Magic
Realm. When this pretains to other products (in the gaming industry), the
price of "copying" such material would be just as great buying them new. Of
course this is very different in the software industry, since the costs
involved are a fraction of the original product. It costs very little to
burn a CD, but it would cost a bundle to "copy" an entire boardgame like
Magic Realm. I really doubt Hasbro or any other game company would have
much to gain by persuing a copyright on the above product. I really doubt
if they make any money on selling second edition rulebooks anyway and would
probably view it as a hassle. Which leads me to a new point, if the gamers
would "write" their own edition of the rules "let's call it the ONLINE
EDITION", would it violate copyright law and does it matter?
Jerry the Slightly Mad...
David R L Porter
is getting hard to unravel.
I wasn't the one proposing re-publishing the rules. I merely
commented to the effect that it might lead to trouble with Hasbro's lawyers.
Ken Agress
<jer...@cvzoom.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
>companies. They shouldn't even apply to the consumer, who in all rights,
>has nothing to gain or loose by violating a copyright law. I'm certainly
So if I buy a CD and duplicate it for my close friends and family,
that doesn't hurt the company? If I take my copy of Empires and Arms,
reproduce the map, pieces, information cards, and rules for
distribution to people I play with that don't own the game, that
hasn't hurt sales?
Copyright law is intended to protect the investment a company or
individual has made in producing their material. Enforcing it may
seem pointless to you, but it is important protection for the company.
>not going to make any money "selling" 2nd. edition rulebooks for Magic
>Realm. When this pretains to other products (in the gaming industry), the
>price of "copying" such material would be just as great buying them new. Of
I don't agree. I could make copies of many games I buy for less than
I pay for them new.
>course this is very different in the software industry, since the costs
>involved are a fraction of the original product. It costs very little to
Software companies have costs that are significantly higher than the
cost of burning the CD. They have to pay for development, marketing,
support staff, etc.. The duplication costs may not be high, but the
development costs are likely to be.
>burn a CD, but it would cost a bundle to "copy" an entire boardgame like
>Magic Realm. I really doubt Hasbro or any other game company would have
>much to gain by persuing a copyright on the above product. I really doubt
But that is a decision they get to make. They may decide to do
nothing, but it is their decision.
>if they make any money on selling second edition rulebooks anyway and would
>probably view it as a hassle. Which leads me to a new point, if the gamers
>would "write" their own edition of the rules "let's call it the ONLINE
>EDITION", would it violate copyright law and does it matter?
>
If the online edition was an obvious derivation or outright copy of
the original, copyright law could be enforced. If you wrote a
completely new set of rules, and stated that you were using the map
from game X to play, but didn't offer copies of the map, pieces, or
other components, I don't believe that there would be a case.
Ken Agress
Larry Welborn
David R L Porter wrote:
>
>
> Anyone fancy arguing the toss with Hasbro's lawyers?
>
> Not me ....
>
Has anyone contacted Hasbro about permission to publish the 2nd edition rules? I
doubt this is a game that will be republished, so perhaps Hasbro wouldn't care.
Larry
--
Note: To reply remove "not" from the address.
William F. Campbell
> >if they make any money on selling second edition rulebooks anyway and
> would
> >probably view it as a hassle. Which leads me to a new point, if the
> gamers
> >would "write" their own edition of the rules "let's call it the
> ONLINE
> >EDITION", would it violate copyright law and does it matter?
> >
> If the online edition was an obvious derivation or outright copy of
> the original, copyright law could be enforced. If you wrote a
> completely new set of rules, and stated that you were using the map
> from game X to play, but didn't offer copies of the map, pieces, or
> other components, I don't believe that there would be a case.
>
> Ken Agress
Actually, you can use the same rules. The rules themselves aren't
copyrightable (as surprising as that may seem), but the presentation,
artwork, and "look and feel" ARE. So you kinda have it the opposite, by
saying "use the same board but different rules". You can use the same
rules, but you need a different board. As far as copyright laws are
concerned, a game is a piece of art rather than a book.
--
Bill Campbell
MJ ,Schneidr
<david....@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> The message <blizzardpop-07...@ppp-66-21.dialup.winternet.com>
> from blizz...@DELETEwintTHISernet.com (MJ ,Schneidr) contains
> these words:
>
>
> > In article <366CA09E...@notmindspring.com>, Larry Welborn
> > <larryw...@notmindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > > With the demise of AH, does anyone know where one can obtain a copy of the
> > > second edition rules?
>
>
> > Could somebody just post the dang things?
>
> > (Like Hasbro is going to give a damn....)
>
> Anyone fancy arguing the toss with Hasbro's lawyers?
>
> Not me ....
Me, neither, which is why I wouldn't tell them.
But then: if they're not going to market the game, how do you figure
they're going to lose so much as a nickel?
MJ ,Schneidr
wgre...@aol.com (Wgreview) wrote:
> No one seems to have pointed out that the 2nd edition rules are
> 80 full-sized pages of relatively small print, with pictures, tables, etc.
If someone were to load me their copy of 2nd, I'd be more than happy to
let OmniPage Pro 8 have a crack at it. I doubt it'd take up more than
three or four 32k text usenet posts.
> Someone in another post complained that Hasbro made him take down
> an unauthorized computer version of Risk. How do you think they'd
> react to someone putting up their 80-page rulebook on a web site?
I doubt they'd react, because rules do not constitute a "game".
And usenet is a public forum, not a private website.
MJ ,Schneidr
<larryw...@notmindspring.com> wrote:
> David R L Porter wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Anyone fancy arguing the toss with Hasbro's lawyers?
> >
> > Not me ....
> >
>
> Has anyone contacted Hasbro about permission to publish the 2nd edition
rules?
Better idea: Ask them if they have 2nd Ed rulebooks for sale. If the
answer is no, then copy and post one.
> doubt this is a game that will be republished, so perhaps Hasbro
wouldn't care.
Replace stuff before @ with mike1.
R. Maker
Not true. The rule book of a board game is every bit as protected as
any other published work. What cannot be copyrighted is the game
system, the algorithms behind the rules. If you can write a rule book
to explain the play of Magic Realm in SUBSTATIALLY different language
(and that DOES NOT mean "translated into a foreign language") than the
original, you may well win the copyright suit. But as soon as you say
"Magic Realm" without all the proper disclaimers (or Hasbro's
permission), you are in violation of their trademark.
Ross
R. Maker
>
> "R. Maker" <rma...@4dintsys.com> wrote:
>
> >Not prosecute (unless copies were being SOLD). But they would have to
> >sue.
>
> the permission of the copyright's owner is both a tort and a criminal
> offense.
>
> Actually, you seem to be drawing a distinction between "prosecute" and
> "sue" that I don't understand and that I don't think exists.
According to my legal friends, prosecution refers to court action in
criminal matters, suit to that in civil matters. In other words, only
the government can prosecute. Anybody can sue.
> >Under US copyright and trademark law, if you don't defend your rights
> >you can lose them.
>
> As David DesJardins already said, copyrights, unlike trademarks,
> persist even if you don't actively protect them.
As he also pointed out, you can lose rights to damage recovery, which is
what I meant.
Ross
Shadow
:that doesn't hurt the company? If I take my copy of Empires and Arms,
:reproduce the map, pieces, information cards, and rules for
:distribution to people I play with that don't own the game, that
:hasn't hurt sales?
There is quite a difference in the practical application of these two.
If you copy the CD, you gain the full functionality of the product at a
fraction of the cost. If you copy the rules/pieces/map of a game, you
have created an inferior copy (most likely) and the associated costs would
be higher than a CD. (software savings would be 90%, the board game would
probably be 60% (if that) and would not be the same quality))
:>not going to make any money "selling" 2nd. edition rulebooks for Magic
:>Realm. When this pretains to other products (in the gaming industry), the
:>price of "copying" such material would be just as great buying them new. Of
:I don't agree. I could make copies of many games I buy for less than
:I pay for them new.
I could also make copies of games. However, the associated costs are not
worth it for the quality produced. I could create a higher quality product
maybe even equal to the original, but that would require more expensive
materials and more time. At that point it is better to just buy the game.
People could play chess using pieces of paper with words written on them played
on a paper board. Total cost would be under $1. Most gamers like the
"atmosphere" a quality game produces. However, if games are out-of-print,
the only alternative is to create a copy. (or in this case, photocopy rules)
However, the copyright laws are in place for a reason. If a company chooses
to not sell a game (or parts of a game), the consumer only has one legal
recourse, to buy the game/parts from another source, most likely other gamers.
Shadow
William F. Campbell
> same
> > rules, but you need a different board. As far as copyright laws are
>
> > concerned, a game is a piece of art rather than a book.
>
> Not true. The rule book of a board game is every bit as protected as
> any other published work. What cannot be copyrighted is the game
> system, the algorithms behind the rules. If you can write a rule book
>
> to explain the play of Magic Realm in SUBSTATIALLY different language
> Ross
I'd really like a definitive answer on this one, and I'm betting
neither Ross nor I are copyright lawyers. Anybody have an authoritative
answer here? I guess the only bone of contention is the use of
"substantially".
--
Bill Campbell Correlation is not cause.
Daniel T.
>Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
>companies.
Copyright laws were invented by governments to protect themselves from
anti-government activists. Companies thought they were a good idea and so
"copied" them. (pun intended)
--
Daniel T.
dani...@gte.net
http://home1.gte.net/danielt3/
Daniel T.
>Actually, you can use the same rules. The rules themselves aren't
>copyrightable (as surprising as that may seem), but the presentation,
>artwork, and "look and feel" ARE.
Re-read the law. Any written work is automatically copyrighted by the
author unless (s)he specifically offers those rights to someone else. Your
not even allowed to copy *excerpts* of the rules except for reviews and
such.
Dr. Smith
What a bunch of bullshit, just post the damm things and fuck the damm
lawers. Don't ya think their lawers have better thinks to worry about? The
rules are totaly uselss without the game (if you wanna make the pieces,
first ya gotta know what they are, and this is one game i'd not like to try
makin' my own!) If they were posted, i think that even if the lawers cared,
it would be a big diffrence between posting them on a web site.
I have a copy from 1979 that i'd be happy to scan and post (can be done
in JPGs then zipped and not be that large of a file at all). However I think
this may be a 1st edition and not what you guys are lookin' for. (It has a
36 page rulebook includeing the back cover.) The rules say '79 however the
box says '78.
If this is what ya are lookin' for let me know and i'll post 'em. If
not, just let me know what edition i have and I won't bother.
-- Dr. Smith
Archive Alpha
Chaos Inc.
"Lawers schmoyers."
David desJardins
> Anyway, copyright infringement is both a crime and a tort, whether
> done for profit or not.
That's not really true, in the US anyway. I'm not going to post the
statute, but while you can commit criminal copyright infringement, you
have to work at it. Xeroxing the rules to a game so you can lend them
to a friend who lost them won't likely do it. Volume matters. Intent,
of course, matters too. (E.g., if you copy something which you believe
you have permission to copy, but you don't, then you still might be
liable for civil infringement, but it couldn't be criminal.)
There's far too much misinformation about the law in this group.
There's a perfectly good misc.int-property group; I have disagreements
with most of the posters there on policy matters (they tend to be very
pro strong-IP), but you can get good information on the law.
David desJardins
The Maverick
>
> However, if games are out-of-print,
> the only alternative is to create a copy. (or in this case, photocopy rules)
No, there is also the r.g.b.marketplace and/or EBay method of buying
your own copy...
the Mav
--
THE SPACE AND FANTASY GAMER'S GUIDE http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/
The guide is a comprehensive game index for the magazines Space Gamer,
Fantasy Gamer, Ares, Interplay, Nexus and VIP of Gaming.
NEW! INTERPLAY #1 will be given away with the first 25 copies sold!
Ken Agress
wrote:
>"Jerry the Slightly Mad" <jer...@cvzoom.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
>>companies.
>
>Copyright laws were invented by governments to protect themselves from
>anti-government activists. Companies thought they were a good idea and so
>"copied" them. (pun intended)
>
Huh? How are copyright laws intended to protect governments from
anti-government activities? They're protection of intellectual
property.
Ken Agress
Kevin J. Maroney
>According to my legal friends, prosecution refers to court action in
>criminal matters, suit to that in civil matters. In other words, only
>the government can prosecute. Anybody can sue.
Ah. I withdraw the statement. Sorry.
Anyway, copyright infringement is both a crime and a tort, whether
done for profit or not.
>As he also pointed out, you can lose rights to damage recovery, which is
>what I meant.
Okayfine.
Kevin J. Maroney
>Re-read the law. Any written work is automatically copyrighted by the
>author unless (s)he specifically offers those rights to someone else. Your
>not even allowed to copy *excerpts* of the rules except for reviews and
>such.
But, under the shameful terms of the Berne Convention, the *rules
themselves* are not protected by copyright.
An example: Let's say I publish a game called "Tic Tac Toe". The rules
are (verbatim):
1. The players take it in turns to place a cross or a nought on one of
the empty spaces of a 3x3 latticework.
2. The first player to form a line of three of his own symbol wins.
Then Bob Gamerwebdude posts to his web site:
"I just came up with this great game. I call it 'Three in a Row'.
Here's how you play:
One person plays X, one person plays O. You have a board that looks
like this:
| |
| |
--------
| |
| |
--------
| |
| |
The person who plays O puts an O anywhere on the board. Then the
person who plays X puts an X anywhere. You can't play where someone
has already played.
If you get three in a row, you win! If no one does, it's a draw."
Under the Berne Convention, what Bob Gamerwebdude has done is
*completely legal*. It's obviously not the same set of rules--the
words overlap at completely coincidental points. It's a description of
the same game, but the game itself is *not protected by copyright*.
David R L Porter
from David desJardins <de...@math.berkeley.edu> contains these words:
> There's far too much misinformation about the law in this group.
There's also the problem that laws differ in different territories.
Copyright law in America is the reason why in some of Stravinsky's
compositions, inaudible parts were added to ensure that the work was
now a revision and hence qualified for copyright extension. In the UK
he wouldn't have had to do that.
In in the UK there's a legal concept of 'passing off' (related to
'look and feel') which would have some bearing in this discussion,
but I have no idea what the USA equivalent, if any, is or how it
applies. (I don't really want to know, that's not my point; I'm just
pointing out the difficulty of arriving at some internationally
applicable statement of 'the law').
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
> Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
> companies.
Actually, copyright laws were created to encourage scientists,
inventors, and artists to share their works with the public.
> They shouldn't even apply to the consumer, who in all rights,
> has nothing to gain or loose by violating a copyright law.
On the contrary, according to the logic of copyright law, you have a lot
to lose -- namely, the intellectual creations of all those people whose
works are protected by copyright.
> I'm certainly
> not going to make any money "selling" 2nd. edition rulebooks for Magic
> Realm.
But the point of copyright is not to stop you from making money, but
rather to try to insure that the creator of an intellectual work *can*
make money, so that he or she will be encouraged to create more.
If I make a few thousand unlicensed copies of "Axis & Allies" and give
them away for free, I won't make any money from that, either, but Hasbro
can still sue me for copyright infringement.
> I really doubt Hasbro or any other game company would have
> much to gain by persuing a copyright on the above product. I really doubt
> if they make any money on selling second edition rulebooks anyway and would
> probably view it as a hassle.
Probably, but that doesn't mean they won't have their lawyers take
action anyway.
> Which leads me to a new point, if the gamers
> would "write" their own edition of the rules "let's call it the ONLINE
> EDITION", would it violate copyright law and does it matter?
Yes, it would. Copyright covers "derivative" works as well -- which is
why, for instance, you'd need Hasbro's permission to make a computer
game version of "Magic Realm."
-- M. Ruff
R. Maker
No, it's not. But that has nothing to do with the Berne Convention.
The
game itself is a process, which, by long-standing definition, does not
fall under copyright, but patent, law. The written (and/or illustrated)
explication of that process (the rules) CAN be copyrighted, but the
process must be patented to get protection. And patent is a much
messier and more expensive process than copyright.
Ross
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> I'd really like a definitive answer on this one...
Definitive answers can be hard to come by in copyright law. Still, you
may want to check out
for starters. It doesn't have any material specifically about game
rules, but it'll give you a good overview of the whole "fair use" issue.
-- M. Ruff
The Maverick
>
> Under the Berne Convention, what Bob Gamerwebdude has done is
> *completely legal*.
Under copyright law perhaps (at least as I understand it), but I
wouldn't rule out other potential forms of liability without consulting
a lawyer qualified in these areas if I were trying to distill something
as complex as the Magic Realm rulebook... there are plenty of other
places where someone could get tripped up that might get them into
trouble. On top of that, if you get sued, you still have to shell out
the $$ to defend yourself even if your conduct ends up being *completely
legal*... ;-)
ai...@freenet.carleton.ca
as a written work, (like a book), the the copyright is initially held by the
author(s). If the work was done for hire, the terms of the contract will
stipulate where copyright lies (with the company, with the company until a
certain time is passed, with the author, etc.)
The foggy part is the fact that we, as purchasers of the game, have paid for
the rules. We have one of two sets of rules. Would the courts see the 2nd
edition rules as being substantially different, or the same, as the first
edition? Would they be seen as an "errata" or bug fix? Would the
non-commercial distribution of the 2nd edition rules fall under the "fair
use" policy?
The first step would be to contact the author(s) of the 2nd edition rules. If
they have no major difficulty with the dissemination of the rules, and
AH/Hasbro is showing no interest in distributing the rules, I doubt any legal
action would be taken, as long as there was no commerce involved in the
distribution.
Alternately, we could devise a new, simpler set of rules for the game,
omitting the use of copyrighted or trademarked material. I'm sure all MR
players have tinkered with the spell and combat portions of the game. Most of
the required info is already on the game cards and tokens. By bringing in
ideas from other games, I'm sure that we could come up with a newer system to
revitalize this grand old game.
Cheers,
Mark Montreuil
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Kevin J. Maroney
>That's not really true, in the US anyway. I'm not going to post the
>statute, but while you can commit criminal copyright infringement, you
>have to work at it. Xeroxing the rules to a game so you can lend them
>to a friend who lost them won't likely do it. Volume matters. Intent,
>of course, matters too.
Actually, volume doesn't matter; according to the statute: "Any
person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of
commercial advantage or private financial gain shall be punished", so
xeroxing a copy and *selling it* for any profit would be a criminal
offense. That would include posting it to a web site which gets
advertising revenue or any other form of traffic-related revenue.
You are right that it takes a bit of willful misdoing for the
infringement to be criminal, and I stand corrected. (Taking the
copyright notice off of something is a criminal offense, I'm amused to
see--so it's not criminal to photocopy something and give it to
friends but it is criminal to photocopy it if you don't include the
copyright page.)
Kevin J. Maroney
>No, it's not. But that has nothing to do with the Berne Convention.
>The
>game itself is a process, which, by long-standing definition, does not
>fall under copyright, but patent, law. The written (and/or illustrated)
>explication of that process (the rules) CAN be copyrighted, but the
>process must be patented to get protection. And patent is a much
>messier and more expensive process than copyright.
And I ask again: Has anyone, anywhere, ever successfully pressed a
suit for patent violation related to a game?
Tim Moore
Gathering. . .there was a flurry of discussion when they got the patent, but
none since. . .I would imagine (since it has been a almost a year) that there
might be some thoughts going on. . .but I don't know exactly what games have
been patented, or if there have been any suits. ..
I have noticed that there has been a decrease in the number of CCG's coming
out in the last year, compared to the previous 2 or 3. . .
tim
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
> <snip>And I ask again: Has anyone, anywhere, ever successfully pressed a
R. Maker
>
> There are many issues at play here. In general terms, if we treat the rules
> as a written work, (like a book), the the copyright is initially held by the
> author(s). If the work was done for hire, the terms of the contract will
> stipulate where copyright lies (with the company, with the company until a
> certain time is passed, with the author, etc.)
>
> The foggy part is the fact that we, as purchasers of the game, have paid for
> the rules. We have one of two sets of rules. Would the courts see the 2nd
> edition rules as being substantially different, or the same, as the first
> edition? Would they be seen as an "errata" or bug fix? Would the
> non-commercial distribution of the 2nd edition rules fall under the "fair
> use" policy?
No, we have paid for ONE COPY of the rules. The owner of the first
edition
of a reference book is not entitled to a copy of subsequent editions.
Why should game rules be any different?
> The first step would be to contact the author(s) of the 2nd edition rules. If
> they have no major difficulty with the dissemination of the rules, and
> AH/Hasbro is showing no interest in distributing the rules, I doubt any legal
> action would be taken, as long as there was no commerce involved in the
> distribution.
Why the author(S)? Unless they hold the copyright, their consent or
dissent
is irrelevant.
and Why is everyone assuming that Hasbro has no intention of
distributing
the rules or the game? Give them a chance to get things sorted out.
You
know how long it takes to get things sorted out after you move. Now
multiply that by however much more stuff is involved, and add the
confusion factor for the people at the receiving end being totally
unfamiliar with
the stuff and not knowing for sure what is even there.
As for the assumption that no legal action would be taken, why would
anyone
want to take the chance? I doubt any of us has deep enough pockets to
hold
out against the kind of legal talent that Hasbro can deploy. And
winning
years after you've had to declare bankruptcy is cold comfort.
> Alternately, we could devise a new, simpler set of rules for the game,
> omitting the use of copyrighted or trademarked material. I'm sure all MR
> players have tinkered with the spell and combat portions of the game. Most of
> the required info is already on the game cards and tokens. By bringing in
> ideas from other games, I'm sure that we could come up with a newer system to
> revitalize this grand old game.
This might (or might not) run afoul of the "derivative works" clause.
Ross
R. Maker
>
> I haven't seen any mention of the Wizards of the Coast patent on Magic: The
> Gathering. . .there was a flurry of discussion when they got the patent, but
> none since. . .I would imagine (since it has been a almost a year) that there
> might be some thoughts going on. . .but I don't know exactly what games have
> been patented, or if there have been any suits. ..
>
> I have noticed that there has been a decrease in the number of CCG's coming
> out in the last year, compared to the previous 2 or 3. . .
That was bound to happen anyway, once the "get rich quick" crowd found
out
that merely publishing a CCG did not guarantee immense wealth. In fact
it
had started the year before, with the distributors and retailers getting
very chary of stocking most of the glut of CCG's coming out from small
publishers. The same thing happened in the late '70's with FRPG's. D&D
hit
it big and T&T, C&S, and RQ were reasonably successful, so a lot of
other
folks decided to get into the act. Most of them took a bath.
Ross
Tim Moore
infringes on another copyright. . .it does not matter if it is sold or given
away. . .the key in this point is: does it decrease sales. ..
A case I have heard about relates to an elementary school teacher whose
class enjoyed a story so much that she photo-copied it for each student. .
.this represented a loss of sales for 25 units for the publisher.
This, it is my guess, would also be applied to the WWW. . .even though
effectively only 1 digital copy is made. . .(that one stored on the server)
because the distribution is so easy, it could literally represent a loss of
sales of the "rulebook" in the 1000.00's (Although, I have never actually
even met anyone who would be willing to try to play Magic Realm with me. .
.)
The copyright holder has a *right* to stop publication of something as
well. In a recent post. . I remember Steve Jackson mentioning the concern
of the presentation of the material (which is covered under copyright law).
He does not want just anyone publishing his out of print work because it may
not be produced in a manner which he would find conducive to the reputation
of his name and company.
I have not piped in yet on this discussion. . .but have participated in a
great many discussions on this topic over the past year (I work in an
academic center for ethics) without getting into everything. . .:
NO, you can not copy, distribute, or publish the 2nd edition rules of Magic
Realm over the web. . .
While I would agree this sounds a bit unfair, I'm sure we will all
appreciate the protection afforded us on copyright, if we ever create
something that represents a signicant addition to our bank accounts.
my .02
tim
ps. ..newsgroup messages are also copyrighted upon creation. .. so if you
use this message and decide to sell it in a collection, please write for
permission. . .I will discuss my fees at that time <giggle>
"Kevin J. Maroney" wrote:
Rob Derrick SGI
> So if I buy a CD and duplicate it for my close friends and family,
> that doesn't hurt the company?
With regard to game rules, I do not know for sure (but imagine
that it might be covered under the same laws as any literary
work).
However, with regard to music, there are still many people
who believe that it is illegal to "buy a CD and duplicate
it for my close friends and family".
This is simply not true. Many years ago I got into a
net argument with an alleged lawyer (I am not). I maintained
that I could certainly make personal, backup, copies of
records, tapes, or CD's that I had purchased. He
maintained that this was false, that that case law
supported it. I asked for the relevent case law,
whereupon he fell silent.
So I began a search for the truth, and what I found
surprised even me. Not only am I allowed to make
personal recording copies, but, as long as I make
no commercial use of the recordings, I can make
copies for any personal purpose whatsoever, which
includes for "my close friends and family".
It is my understanding (I don't have the relevent
ref right at hand, but...) that included in the cost
of each tape cassette (and video cassette) is a small
"tax" that is paid to the music (and film) licensing
agencies (based on arcane mathematical and statistical
models, I tro') which essentially pre-licenses the copy
of whatever you put on that tape.
The law which grants this is knows as the "Home Recording Act",
and the relevent passage can be found at:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
In brief, section 1008 (see the last clause):
§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of
copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of
a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium,
an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based
on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium
for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
Now, related to game rules, I imagine that there _must_ be some
exception to this rule, or there is trouble ahead, because of the
numerous sites that publish the numerous translations of numerous
rules sets, from foreign games to CCG's. What's the story with
them if it is in an of itself illegal?
rob
Daniel T.
(Ken Agress) wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Dec 1998 18:26:53 -0500, dani...@gte.net (Daniel T.)
>wrote:
>
>>"Jerry the Slightly Mad" <jer...@cvzoom.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
>>>companies.
>>
>>Copyright laws were invented by governments to protect themselves from
>>anti-government activists. Companies thought they were a good idea and so
>>"copied" them. (pun intended)
>>
>Huh? How are copyright laws intended to protect governments from
>anti-government activities? They're protection of intellectual
>property.
Copyright laws were *originally* written with the intent to protect
governments. They have changed greatly over the years...
Aristophanes
<da...@desjardins.org> wrote:
> "R. Maker" <rma...@4dintsys.com> writes:
> > Under US copyright and trademark law, if you don't defend your rights
> > you can lose them.
>
> That's not true. Copyright persists regardless of whether you defend
> it. However, if you fail to defend your copyright you might be limited
> in the types of damages you can recover.
True.
But almost impossible to defend for a game that is out of print.
Aristophanes
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Jerry the Slightly Mad wrote:
>
> > Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
> > companies.
>
> Actually, copyright laws were created to encourage scientists,
> inventors, and artists to share their works with the public.
Nope. That's intellectual property law. Different from copyright which is
to cover published materials without ancillary application (i.e. a
formula). Trade secrets are another category. Finally there is trademark
which is the enactment of a symbol or text as property, as in a brand name.
Aristophanes
God!
I haven't played Magic Realm in over a decade.
Anyone got an edition they'd like to sell me?
I'm not kidding.
EChoota
>> would "write" their own edition of the rules "let's call it the ONLINE
>> EDITION", would it violate copyright law and does it matter?
>
>Yes, it would. Copyright covers "derivative" works as well -- which is
>why, for instance, you'd need Hasbro's permission to make a computer
>game version of "Magic Realm."
>
>-- M. Ruff
I always wonder about this who derivative issue with Hasbro. There are a dozen
different 'derivative' expansions and whatnot for A&A and yet Hasbro hasn't
lifted a finger. They went after the guys who did Dogs of War but that was a
obvious ripoff of A&A and it was probably fueled more by the fact that Hasbro
Interactive was working on their own A&A title than anything else.
Ken Agress
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Copyright laws were *originally* written with the intent to protect
>governments. They have changed greatly over the years...
>
Could you explain this further? I'd be happy to be educated, but the
above just doesn't make any sense to me.
Ken Agress
Ken Agress
wrote:
<snip>
>
>The law which grants this is knows as the "Home Recording Act",
>and the relevent passage can be found at:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/ch10.html
>
>In brief, section 1008 (see the last clause):
>
> § 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions
I'm no lawyer, so I can't debate this point. I simply don't have the
necessary background or time to research whether what you have posted
is true and enforceable.
>
<snip>
>
>Now, related to game rules, I imagine that there _must_ be some
>exception to this rule, or there is trouble ahead, because of the
>numerous sites that publish the numerous translations of numerous
>rules sets, from foreign games to CCG's. What's the story with
>them if it is in an of itself illegal?
>
The publisher/owner of the copyright always has the choice of either
enforcing or not enforcing their copyright. Perhaps the publisher
believes that these translations will increase sales of the actual
game at a significantly lower cost than they could be actually
publishing a version of the game in that language. You'd have to ask
the publishers themselves.
Ken Agress
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> In article <366E91...@worldnet.att.net>, Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
> <Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Jerry the Slightly Mad wrote:
> >
> > > Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themsleves from other
> > > companies.
> >
> > Actually, copyright laws were created to encourage scientists,
> > inventors, and artists to share their works with the public.
>
Last I checked, "intellectual property law" *includes* copyright,
patent, and trademark.
-- M. Ruff
MJ 'Schneidr
> MJ ,Schneidr wrote:
> > But then: if they're not going to market the game, how do you figure
> > they're going to lose so much as a nickel?
>
> Well, how do *you* know they're not going to market the game?
>
> The fact is, you don't know. They might re-publish it again in the
> near future. They might produce a computer version. They might sell
> the rights to someone else. They might do something else with the
> game.
>
> So if someone gives away the game (or part of it) today for free, that
> would certainly affect future income from it.
You can't play Magic Realm with just the rules anymore that you can
play Chess with just the rules or drive a car with just the owner's
manual.
Replace stuff before @ with mike1. "[America] has turned into Film
Noir, complete with murder victims and psychotic conspirators in
unexpected positions of authority." -- Bill Kasper ===============
Victim not shot with a .38: http://www.federal.com/oct26-98/Story01.html
Coup USA: gopher://freenet.akron.oh.us:70/00/SIGS/JFK/FAQ/faq-daeron/3-faq
Why were the black GIs murdered? The Slaughter: http://www.theslaughter.com/
They screwed people left and right: http://users.aol.com/beachbt/screwold.txt
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> >> Which leads me to a new point, if the gamers
> >> would "write" their own edition of the rules "let's call it the ONLINE
> >> EDITION", would it violate copyright law and does it matter?
> >
> >Yes, it would. Copyright covers "derivative" works as well -- which is
> >why, for instance, you'd need Hasbro's permission to make a computer
> >game version of "Magic Realm."
> >
> >-- M. Ruff
>
> I always wonder about this who derivative issue with Hasbro. There are a dozen
> different 'derivative' expansions and whatnot for A&A and yet Hasbro hasn't
> lifted a finger.
Well, since expansions are accessories that are intended to add to the
core game rather than replace it, they may be protected by the "fair
use" provision of the copyright law. Expansion makers can argue that by
enhancing the game, they actually increase Hasbro's potential market
rather than detract from it.
On the other hand, I remember some years back there was a guy who came
out with his own Magic: the Gathering expansion. The set came in the
form of stickers that could be stuck on surplus land cards (a great
idea). But Wizards of the Coast shut him down quick, arguing that the
unauthorized expansion set would "confuse" customers and cut into sales
of their own expansions. So, expansion maker beware...
-- M. Ruff
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> And I ask again: Has anyone, anywhere, ever successfully pressed a
> suit for patent violation related to a game?
My sense is that in the majority of cases, you wouldn't have to press it
-- just threaten it. Most game designers/hobbyists don't have the money
to defend themselves against a suit, even if they have a case.
That said, you may want to check out the Anti-Monopoly website at
for details on game designer Ralph Anspach's long-running court battle
with Parker Brothers.
-- M. Ruff
R. Maker
Excuse me, but what is your source for that statement?
Ross
R. Maker
But that was over trademark, not patent.
Ross
Viktor Haag
> And I ask again: Has anyone, anywhere, ever successfully
> pressed a suit for patent violation related to a game?
Well, I'm not sure that Wizards of the Coast has successfully
pressed a suit, but I understand they used their patent as a big
stick with which to threaten other CCG companies into either
stopping production or paying WoC a "fee".
Whether the coincidental collapse in the CCG market was caused by
this, or whether this was even a contributing factor, is not
something I can comment on. But it seemed clear (and I don't
think things have necessarily changed all that much) that WoC was
certainly willing to march their lawyers into court to sue the
"offenders".
Anyone else who knows more about this issue than my own obviously
sketchy memory -- please contribute.
--
Viktor Haag The PEER Group, Inc.
mailto:vik...@peergroup.com Information Developer
"Unlike serial-killer profiling, writing is a
lonely and depressing profession ..." Jose Chung
Kevin J. Maroney
>On top of that, if you get sued, you still have to shell out
>the $$ to defend yourself even if your conduct ends up being *completely
>legal*... ;-)
Yep. Belligerent legislation is one of the banes of American
jurisprudence.
Shadow
:>the $$ to defend yourself even if your conduct ends up being *completely
:>legal*... ;-)
In most cases, your costs are absorbed by the entity trying to sue you if
it ends up being thrown out. However, you still need to come up with the
money up front, and get re-imbursed later. This is what prohibits most
people from even mounting a defense and they choose to settle instead.
Shadow
David desJardins
> Copyright laws were invented by governments to protect themselves from
> anti-government activists. Companies thought they were a good idea and so
"Jerry the Slightly Mad" wrote (2):
> Copyright laws were invented so companies can protect themselves from
> other companies.
"Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold" writes (3):
> Actually, copyright laws were created to encourage scientists,
> inventors, and artists to share their works with the public.
Plenty of different, contradictory statements here. No doubt each can
be justified somewhat by a reading of history. But I doubt that anyone
is going to get a full understanding of the history of copyright from
these sorts of selective blurbs, all apparently chosen to illustrate a
particular point important to the writer. I still think that misc.legal
or misc.int-property would be a better place to learn some actual facts
about copyright.
The first "copyright" wasn't based on a "law" in the modern sense. In
order to publish, a printer would get a license from the sovereign
(e.g., the king of England), which would give that publisher exclusive
rights to publish that work, for a fee to the government. Indeed, this
did operate as a form of censorship (1): the sovereign could use this to
control the printing of anti-government works. It also allowed printers
to "protect themselves" from one another (2), in the sense of building a
market for a work, and then not having another publisher come in and
undercut it.
One thing that it didn't do was protect the author. For that and many
other reasons, the first copyright "law" was passed, the Statute of Anne
(in 1710). This created a copyright system much more familiar to modern
eyes. The rights to a work belonged to the author, and lasted only for
a fixed period of time (28 years, I think). One can certainly study the
reasons for adoption of this system, and I do think that one was to make
sure that authors were adequately compensated for new works. But I
don't see how it can be said that the reason was "to encourage
scientists, inventors, and artists to share their works with the public"
(3). After all, if they didn't share their works they wouldn't get any
revenue from them at all.
Later (in 1788), the US Constitution was adopted, with its famous lines
regarding (patent and) copyright: "To Promote the Progress of Science
and Useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors ... the
exclusive Right to their ... Writings." Shortly thereafter (in 1790),
the first US copyright statute was enacted, "An ACT for the
Encouragement of Learning, by securing the Copies of Maps, Charts and
Books, to the Authors and Proprietors of such Copies." Again, one can
debate the motivations of those who wrote such language, and I'm sure
that one can argue that they felt that, to some extent, protecting the
rights of authors encouraged them to write and publish (3).
David desJardins
The Maverick
>
> :>On top of that, if you get sued, you still have to shell out
> :>the $$ to defend yourself even if your conduct ends up being *completely
> :>legal*... ;-)
>
> In most cases, your costs are absorbed by the entity trying to sue you if
> it ends up being thrown out.
That would be nice if it were true...
the Mav
--
THE SPACE AND FANTASY GAMER'S GUIDE http://www.brainiac.com/micro/sfgg/
The guide is a comprehensive game index for the magazines Space Gamer,
Fantasy Gamer, Ares, Interplay, Nexus and VIP of Gaming.
NEW! INTERPLAY #1 will be given away with the first 25 copies sold!
Aristophanes
Meaning that it would be hard to convince a court that any damages could be
awarded, or the case any merit. There would be a strong case made that the
posting of rules constituted fair use as the company has shown no
willingness to update its product, and in fact stopped both production and
shipping. Damages can only account for something lost, in this case,
nothing. It cannot possibly be lost sales.
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
>
> Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold wrote:
> >
> > Kevin J. Maroney wrote:
> > >
> > > suit for patent violation related to a game?
> >
> > -- just threaten it. Most game designers/hobbyists don't have the money
> > to defend themselves against a suit, even if they have a case.
> >
> > That said, you may want to check out the Anti-Monopoly website at
> >
> > http://www.antimonopoly.com
> >
> > for details on game designer Ralph Anspach's long-running court battle
> > with Parker Brothers.
>
> But that was over trademark, not patent.
Whoops, sorry -- I was focusing on the fact that it was one of the few
board-game intellectual property infringement cases that had actually
gone to court (as opposed to what I imagine is the more common instance
of Hasbro's lawyers sending a threatening letter to someone and getting
them to cease and desist). But you're right, Anti-Monopoly was a
trademark case, not a patent case.
-- M. Ruff
R. Maker
>
> Shadow wrote:
> >
> > :>On top of that, if you get sued, you still have to shell out
> > :>the $$ to defend yourself even if your conduct ends up being *completely
> > :>legal*... ;-)
> >
> > In most cases, your costs are absorbed by the entity trying to sue you if
> > it ends up being thrown out.
>
> That would be nice if it were true...
And having the case thrown out is much different than the plaintiff
losing.
Ross
R. Maker
Sorry, but you are wrong. As long as the copyright is in existence, it
is defensible. Many works go out of print for a period and are then
brought back.
Do you want to try, for example, posting a DTV version of one of the OOP
Disney videos on your website? Or the text of an OOP Stephen King
book? I suspect not. "Out of print" is NOT the same as "public
domain".
Ross
Ken Agress
>:>On top of that, if you get sued, you still have to shell out
>:>the $$ to defend yourself even if your conduct ends up being *completely
>:>legal*... ;-)
>
>In most cases, your costs are absorbed by the entity trying to sue you if
>it ends up being thrown out. However, you still need to come up with the
>money up front, and get re-imbursed later. This is what prohibits most
>people from even mounting a defense and they choose to settle instead.
>
Unless I'm reading your e-mail address and headers wrong, you're
posting from the University of Las Vegas. Perhaps what you cite above
is the law in Nevada, but it's not here in California and in the
overwhelming majority of the U.S.. There's been consistent talk of
tort reform in various state legislatures, and in U.S. Federal court,
but if you get court costs, it's because the judge/jury decided to
award them to you. It certainly is not automatic, and normally (from
what I've seen in the papers) only happens when there are actual
damages levied against the losing participant (which is unlikely to
happen if you're defending yourself in a copyright suit).
Ken Agress
Ken Agress
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Meaning that it would be hard to convince a court that any damages could be
>awarded, or the case any merit. There would be a strong case made that the
>posting of rules constituted fair use as the company has shown no
>willingness to update its product, and in fact stopped both production and
>shipping. Damages can only account for something lost, in this case,
>nothing. It cannot possibly be lost sales.
I'm not sure this is true. Based on this thinking, if I were to
develop and copyright a game that were never actually published, and
you sold bootleg copies, I wouldn't have much standing as you didn't
cut into my sales. I don't think it would work that way.
I also believe that you could be liable for potential losses. Let's
suppose that Magic Realm could make a comeback, due to a sudden
increase in demand caused by family game night. If your activities
could be construed to have hurt the pending re-release of the game, I
could see a court holding you liable.
I'll admit, it's a complex issue, but you might very well be able to
obtain damages for copywritten material that is out of print.
Ken Agress
Ken Agress
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>
>On the other hand, I remember some years back there was a guy who came
>out with his own Magic: the Gathering expansion. The set came in the
>form of stickers that could be stuck on surplus land cards (a great
>idea). But Wizards of the Coast shut him down quick, arguing that the
>unauthorized expansion set would "confuse" customers and cut into sales
>of their own expansions. So, expansion maker beware...
>
The above is interesting, but I wonder if WotC didn't prevail due to
the patent they were issued rather than the copyright they hold...
Ken Agress
Matt Ruff / Lisa Gold
This was back before they got the patent...
-- M. Ruff
Ken Agress
<Storyt...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> >
>> The above is interesting, but I wonder if WotC didn't prevail due to
>> the patent they were issued rather than the copyright they hold...
>
>This was back before they got the patent...
>
Guess that answers that, then. :-)
Ken Agress
Jerry the Slightly Mad
Not knowing the firestorm of legal mumbo-jumbo I started (which I really
don't care about) could somebody "LEND" me their copy of their second
edition "Magic Realm" rulebook for a few days? I will send it back to you
and pay your postage to me in a few days. I have a ton of references as a
good trader and you WILL get your rulebook back. That should take the
"copyright" conscious off of you guys....
Thanks,
Jerry the Slightly Mad...