[COPYRIGHT] What TSR claism ownership off.
Jeff Kesselman
to claim rights on our independantly created materials by playing word
games with their Net Policy Statement. I've reprinted their initial
missive to the Jove site below, that shows pretty clearly exaclty what
they are claiming ownership off.
'Nuff said.
Jeff Kessleman
[Note: Slacker01 is in my kill file. Failure on my part to respond to
any comments he might make about my posts means nothing, as I just plain
don't see them.]
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 94 17:28:59 -0400
From: TSR...@aol.com
To: postm...@rigel.cs.pdx.edu
Subject: TSR Copyrighted Material
SYSTEM ADMINISTRATOR:
Your site was recently included in a list of noted FTP sites for DUNGEONS AND
DRAGONS and ADVANCED DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS gaming material. You should be
aware that DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS and all related marks and properties are
copyrighted by TSR, Inc. of Lake Geneva, Wisconsin.
You should also be aware that any items created without a specific license
are infringements of TSR copyrights. Such items include (but are not
limited to) any software, net.books, modules, tables, stories, or rules
modifications which contain elements from our copyrighted properties,
including characters, settings, realm names, noted magic items, spells,
elements of the gaming system, such as ARMOR CLASS, HIT DICE, and so forth.
To date, TSR has not licensed any of these net publications.
On behalf of TSR, Inc. I ask that you examine your public net sites at this
time and remove any material which infringes on TSR copyrights.
Our intention is to find a way to license these and future creative efforts.
In the meantime, remove them from your sites without delay.
To clarify reasoning for this request, I recently posted the following policy
statement to rec.games.frp.dnd:
> As we have begun to explore the online community in depth, we've found many
> avid gamers and fans. We're interested in providing you with the best in
> gaming products that meet our own standards of quality, as well as suiting
> your needs and interests. We know that many gamers develop campaigns and
> other materials entirely for their own use. We think this is great!
> However, when gamers begin sharing their creations with the public, whether
> for profit or not, they are infringing our rights. If we don't make an
> earnest attempt to prevent this infringement of our trademarks and
> copyrights, our ownership of these extremely valuable assets may be
> jeopardized.
>
> A gamer in this situation has a few options. He can strip every TSR
> trademark and all copyright from his creations before putting them in
> public
> (i.e. "genericize" the adventure). Or he can share his creations with the
> public in a way that is licensed and approved by TSR. This is the more
> desirable solution, as it protects our rights, and still leaves room for
> gamers to share their creative expressions.
>
> Sometime very soon, we're going to create a place where gamers can legally
> upload and share their creations, including modules, stories and software.
> At
> that time, I'd be happy to work with you to give your product a base to
> work
> from. We are definitely interested in fostering goodwill among customers,
> and we'd like to see our upcoming effort as a pilot project. Eventually,
> we
> want gamers to be able to turn to TSR in cyberspace as easily as they do in
> a
> hobby store.
Please feel free to contact me with comments or questions. I will refer any
pertinent queries to our legal department as soon as I receive them.
Rob Repp | InterNet: tsr...@aol.com
Manager, Digital Projects Group | InterNet: mob...@mercury.mcs.com
TSR, Inc. | CompuServe: 76217,761
__________________________________ | GEnie: TSR.Online AOL: TSR Inc
All opinions are my own, not TSR's | 414-248-3625 Fax 414-248-0389
Slacker01
>to claim rights on our independantly created materials by playing word
>to the Jove site below, that shows pretty clearly exaclty what they are
>claiming ownership off.
<Reprinted statement deleted>
Jeff, I've just read the statement over several times, and I still can't see
where they "claim rights on our independantly created materials." Could you
point to exactly the line you're talking about? It seems all TSR does in the
entire statement is talk about the copyrights in their own products (and how
they can't be used without permission), not whether they have rights over
your "independantly created materials."
Best,
---Slacker01
Jeff Kesselman
Joseph Grace <jgr...@netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <3e04vl$ksc$1...@mhade.production.compuserve.com>,
>Slacker01 <72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>>Jeff, I've just read the statement over several times, and I still can't see
>>where they "claim rights on our independantly created materials." Could you
>>point to exactly the line you're talking about?
>
Pointing things out to Slacker01 is pointless, as he has shown a capacity
to ignore any part of any post that does not agree with him.
Furthermore, he KNOWS (and so do you all) that I would never read his
question, since I CLEARLY stated at the bottom of that post that he is in
my kill file and thus I will NOT be seeing anything he posts.
(The only reason I saw this was because Joe responded to it.)
So, this is either a cheap shot that he knows will go unanswerd, or a
bizzare phrasing of a rhetorical question. I leave the final analysis to
the reader.
Jeff Kesselman
[NOTE: Slacker01 is in my kill file. Any failure on my part to respond
to anything he says about my posts means nothing, as I will never see
his comments.]
Paul R. Dupuis
Kesselman) wrote:
Sorry for all the nested attributions above, but I thought it important
to include just who wrote what in this matter.
Jeff, I've been following this Copyright and Trademark thread since it
first started, and have kept fairly quiet through most of it. I'm not
sure quite why this particular post pushed my buttons, but it did.
I really think you're making a mistake ignoring Slacker. (Now, before
your blood pressure goes up any more, just take a deep breath and
let me continue.) For a week or so now, it's been obvious that no
matter what Slacker says, or how he says it, you manage to interpret
it as a personal attack. (To back up this statement, I point to the
"cheap shot" phrase in your response -- an indication that you think
Slacker's request for clarification was a cheap shot at either you
or your argument.)
In response to your invitation (leaving the "final analysis to the
reader": My analysis is that Slacker's request is quite valid and
phrased in a manner that was polite and not meaning any offense.
(I couldn't read any sarcasm into his original post requesting
clarification; but apparently you could.) His question was, and
I quote it again:
> >Slacker01 <72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >>Jeff, I've just read the statement over several times, and I still can't see
> >>where they "claim rights on our independantly created materials." Could you
> >>point to exactly the line you're talking about?
Well, I've read the statement over several times myself, (and read the
original posts by Rob Repp several times when they first appeared
months ago), and I have to second the question:
Where do they claim rights on independantly created materials?
It certainly doesn't show up anywhere in the message TSR sent to
site administors.
--Ann
of Ann & Paul
Steve Gilham
> Where do they claim rights on independantly created materials?
> --Ann
> of Ann & Paul
Let's try nice simple example. Suppose I draft up a module based on
the storyline of "Much Ado About Nothing", (yes! it's derivative! but
the Bard *is* safely out of copyright) pretty it up with a town
plan of Messina, timelines, floor plan of Leonato's villa based on
typical villas of the period. Then as soon as I write something like
"Don John is a 6th level fighter with 38 hitpoints and AC7 based on
his dexterity and single weapon style specialisation; Borachio is a
4th level rogue with AC9 and 18 hitpoints. The typical town watchman
is a 0th level man at arms (AC10, 5HP) with a polearm."
it has the magic words referred to in Rob Repp's post and they sue
reflexively.
That's the issue at hand.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |Lives of great men all remind us
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |We may make our lives sublime
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |And departing, leave behind us
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)223-300111 x2904|Footprints in the sands of time.
jonathan broadfield
: Well, I've read the statement over several times myself, (and read the
: original posts by Rob Repp several times when they first appeared
: months ago), and I have to second the question:
: Where do they claim rights on independantly created materials?
: It certainly doesn't show up anywhere in the message TSR sent to
: site administors.
: --Ann
: of Ann & Paul
the following is an edit of the tsr press release, noting the parts
that claim rights on independently created materials.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>REGARDING TRADEMARKED AND COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL USED ON-LINE:
TSR is now an active member of the on-line gaming community. [ ... ]
>SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR CONTINUED PLAY:
WHEN USING TSR PROPERTIES:
You can create material using the AD&D game mechanics, etc. and place that
material on MPGNet, a licensee of TSR, or place it on AOL on TSR's new
Bulletin Board. [ ... ]
[ ... ] Currently, any other distribution to the
general public - in paper form or on the net - of AD&D adventures, other TSR
materials and game mechanics, or copyrighted materials is considered
unauthorized. However, you CAN freely distribute or publish "generic" novels,
stories, game mechanics, etc. Read on.
HOW TO CREATE GENERIC MATERIAL - SOME TIPS:
Don't specifically use AD&D statistics. [ ... ]
Don't use monsters, spells, etc. that were created by TSR.[ ... ]
For example, Drow were created by TSR, but a hydra is a known legendary
monster and is public domain. [ ... in fact, this is still yet to be proven
... ]
[ ... ] And you are free to publish anywhere
when you specifically do not rely on AD&D game mechanics or other material
from TSR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
yes, it is vague. it is slightly ambiguous. but it is there.
it remains up to tsr to take the step to clarify their intentions, but
there has been no authoritative word from rob repp on the matter, and
so we must be careful to guard our rights and prepare ourselves for
what might happen.
slacker, ann, anyone else: is this clear enough?
--
-sta...@astro.ocis.temple.edu - *
--
Bertil Jonell
Paul R. Dupuis <pa...@hermes.bc.edu> wrote:
>Well, I've read the statement over several times myself, (and read the
>original posts by Rob Repp several times when they first appeared
>months ago), and I have to second the question:
>
>Where do they claim rights on independantly created materials?
>
>It certainly doesn't show up anywhere in the message TSR sent to
>site administors.
To quote that message:
*****
You should also be aware that any items created without a specific license
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
are infringements of TSR copyrights. Such items include (but are not
limited to) any software, net.books, modules, tables, stories, or rules
modifications which contain elements from our copyrighted properties,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^********^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
including characters, settings, realm names, noted magic items, spells,
elements of the gaming system, such as ARMOR CLASS, HIT DICE, and so forth.
To date, TSR has not licensed any of these net publications.
*****
If they didn't claim rights to independently created materials, why
would they have to license it, and how could they license it? That's
what licenses are for: to allow you to make use of something they have
the right to.
If you want to make Luke Skywalker dolls you have to have a license
from Lucas, cause he holds the *right* to Luke Skywalker (but it is
through trademark, not copyright!).
What has obviously fooled a lot of people is that TSR's statement
clearly *assumes* that any use of *elements* from anything they have
copyright on is an infringement, so the only question left is if you
really used those elements or not.
That will shift the attention from the real question: does copyright
give the right to all *elements* used? Does Tom Clancy's copyright on
Red Storm Rising give him the right to all technothrillers where Iceland
is invaded by the Russians? Does the X-Files mean that noone else can
produce a serial/movie/book/game where FBI-agents battle the supernatural?
Does Ian Flemming's copyrights on the James Bond stories mean that
everyone else is precluded about writing about agents working for the UK
without a license from Ian Flemming?
TSR is saying: Since we have right A, then if you do action B you will
infringe our rights if you don't have license C.
Discussing if action B has taken place or not, or if licence C is
implied or not means fighting the battle by their rules, because
they don't have right A!
The bottom line is that they are trying to pull a fast one.
>of Ann & Paul
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Jeff Kesselman
I ignore Slacker01 because his rehtorical style leads me to angry posting
which is bad for the net. Withotu assigning any balme, let me just say
that this is a courtesy to the rest of the net that I have decided to
observe.
My only comment on his comment was that he asked for a response from a
man he knows to be deaf. I see no logic in this except to try to make a
point by the deaf-man's not responding.
Thats all I'm going to say on the subject, for the reasons in paragraph 1.
Jeff Kesselman
John J Cassidy
[> To quote that message: [ T$R's Message ]
[> *****
[> You should also be aware that any items created without a specific license
[> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[> are infringements of TSR copyrights. Such items include (but are not
[> limited to) any software, net.books, modules, tables, stories, or rules
[> modifications which contain elements from our copyrighted properties,
[> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^********^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[> including characters, settings, realm names, noted magic items, spells,
[> elements of the gaming system, such as ARMOR CLASS, HIT DICE, and so forth.
[> To date, TSR has not licensed any of these net publications.
[> *****
[> If they didn't claim rights to independently created materials, why
[> would they have to license it, and how could they license it? That's
[> what licenses are for: to allow you to make use of something they have
[> the right to.
IMO, they mean you must license the *elements*, not the material
created by the elements. Their advice to publish a module generically
demonstrates that they don't claim to possess anything but phrases like
"THAC0", and "Slaad". That is what you'd be licensing.
[> That will shift the attention from the real question: does copyright
[> give the right to all *elements* used? Does Tom Clancy's copyright on
[> Red Storm Rising give him the right to all technothrillers where Iceland
[> is invaded by the Russians? Does the X-Files mean that noone else can
[> produce a serial/movie/book/game where FBI-agents battle the supernatural?
[> Does Ian Flemming's copyrights on the James Bond stories mean that
[> everyone else is precluded about writing about agents working for the UK
[> without a license from Ian Flemming?
From your quote, I get that 1) a seasoned warrior who carries a
sword called Dragon's Bane, which he found in the depths of an Egyptian
crypt is not contested by T$R according to their "generic" scenario idea.
but 2) that a 5th level Fighter who carries a +2 sword of Mind-Flayer-
slaying which he found in the Greyhawk dungeon is. The latter has
elements developed by T$R, the former doesn't.
What might be causing all the hubbub is that nowhere does T$R
say that people can publish the module under a different system. But
I think this has more to do with not wanting to lose customers, than
their presumption of ownership of all similar materials.
All that said, T$R is still a disease in the gaming community.
Here's hoping that they lose all those customers to other systems.
--
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
_/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \_
\John J_Cassidy/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \_cas...@cps.msu.edu/
_/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \_
\__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/ \__/
Bertil Jonell
Great Cthulhu <d...@chem.ucla.edu> wrote:
>The funny thing is, they also claim terms like "hit points" and "armor class"
>which are clearly used, without license, in many published materials out
>there, some of which, I am told, date to BEFORE *D&D.
Xerox, Apple, Microsoft.
Or a more recent example: CocaCola vs that Alaska(?) soda outfit that
always used polar bears in their commercials.
>-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
Slacker01
> *****
>You should also be aware that any items created without a specific licence
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>are infringements of TSR copyrights. Such items include (but are not limited
>to) any software, net.books, modules, tables, stories, or rule modifications
>which contain elements from our copyrighted properties....
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^********^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>If they didn't claim rights to independently created materials, why would
>they have to license it?
Bertil, I'm not sure I'm following your conclusions. The excerpt you posted
shows TSR claiming infringement for "items....which contain elements from
[TSR's] copyrighted properties. My question is: If it contains elements from
TSR's copyrighted properties, then how is it "independently created" material?
If it's got TSR stuff in it, then it's not "independently created"; and if
it's independently created, then it doesn't have TSR stuff in it. By that
measure, TSR isn't claiming ownership of independently created works at all.
In fact, if you read further into the message, you see that TSR specifically
disavows any rights to works that are created independent of its copyrights,
and actually encourages it.
Beyond that, you have to understand exactly what they're claiming rights to:
They're not claiming any rights to the body of your work; they're only claiming
rights to the copyrighted TSR portions that you've used in it. So they're
not claiming any rights to the "independently created materials," they're only
claiming rights to the parts that were created with their copyrights, rather
than independently.
>Lucas...holds the *right* to Luke Skywalker (but it is through trademark,
>not copyright!)
Well, you're correct to say that Lucas holds the trademark to Luke Skywalker,
but he also does hold the copyright in the character. Characters can indeed
be copyrighted, which is how comic book companies protect the most important
elements of their comic books. (If you've got access to a law library, look
up the rulings on the Superman vs. Captain Marvel cases; I can dig up the
citations, if you're interested.)
>What has obviously fooled a lot of people is that TSR's statement clearly
>*assumes* that any use of *elements* from anything they have copyright on
>is an infringement....that will shift the attention from the real question:
>does copyright give the right to all *elements* used?
You raise an extremely insightful question. The fact is, copyright law protects
the underlying elements of a work....but only to a point: ultimately, you can
break down any copyrighted work into such fundamental elements that the elements
no longer constitute any kind of expression. For instance, TSR's rulebooks
are copyrighted; but the rulebooks are just a collection of pages, which are
a collection of paragraphs, which are a collection of words, which are a
collection of letters. In other words, at what point does copyright break down
and no longer offer any protection?
That's ultimately a question for the court, decided on a case-by-case basis.
Previous courts have offered a general rule that there needs to be a minimum
level of creative expression before a work can be granted copyright; in that
respect, an 'e' written by Doestoyevski would get no more protection than an
'e' written by Pee Wee Herman, since there's no minimum level of creative
expression.
So are the rudimentary "elements" that TSR claims copyright over, actually
qualify for protection? Well, recent courts have indicated (including a
decision I've just downloaded, which I'll post tomorrow) that the simple
act of assigning a number to an item like an automobile can constitute
copyrightable expression, if a minimum level of creativity went into the
decision of arriving at that particular number. It's the same argument that
TSR is making, WRT armor class, and the courts have held that small amount
of expression to be copyrightable.
Again, I'll post that decision for folks tomorrow.
Best,
---Slacker01
Jeff Kesselman
John J Cassidy <cas...@cps.msu.edu> wrote:
> From your quote, I get that 1) a seasoned warrior who carries a
>sword called Dragon's Bane, which he found in the depths of an Egyptian
>crypt is not contested by T$R according to their "generic" scenario idea.
>but 2) that a 5th level Fighter who carries a +2 sword of Mind-Flayer-
>slaying which he found in the Greyhawk dungeon is. The latter has
>elements developed by T$R, the former doesn't.
Yes, this is exactly what they claim. If you develop something for
AD&D, as oppsoed to for a novel or a screenplay, you are going to have
to use AD&D terms, true? Thus they are claiming partial ownership
to the Copyrighst in that work. If YOU owned all the Copyrights, you
would by defintiion be free to reproduce and redistribuet that work
without an liscense from them. Thats what a Copyrigth is-- the right to
copy.
THATS is the real issue.
Now, Do they own those rights? Some people think so, some don't.
Slacker01 says he does, I don't, my lawyer doesn't. An issue raised by my
lawyer is that where there is only one way to express an idea with
reasonable clarity, that expression CANNOT be monopolized or controlled. I
see no other reasonable way to say "A 5th level fighter", that conveys the
same information. Can you?
Jeff Kesselman
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and the above should not be construed as
legal advice.]
Great Cthulhu
> IMO, they mean you must license the *elements*, not the material
>created by the elements. Their advice to publish a module generically
>demonstrates that they don't claim to possess anything but phrases like
>"THAC0", and "Slaad". That is what you'd be licensing.
The funny thing is, they also claim terms like "hit points" and "armor class"
which are clearly used, without license, in many published materials out
there, some of which, I am told, date to BEFORE *D&D.
--
-Doug Gibson d...@wiffin.chem.ucla.edu
"Hell has our phone number." - DEC "I'll bet it does!" - Me
GS d-(+) H s+:+ !g p? au a- w+ v C++ UH++(++++) P--- L- 3- E N++ K W--- M+ V--
po- Y+ t+ 5- j R++ G+('') tv b+++ !D B--- e++>++++ u+ h---(*) f r+++ n- y+++
Slacker01
Actually, that's incorrect. Copyright encompasses five rights, not one:
The right to duplicate, derivate, distribute, display, and perform.
>An issue raised by my lawyer is that where there is only one way to express
>an idea with reasonable clarity, that expression CANNOT be monopolized...
>I see no other reasonable way to say "A 5th level fighter", that conveys
>the same information.
Well, you've obviously never played first edition: The PH called them
"swashbucklers" for about 10 years. There's any number of other ways you
could express that same idea, anyway: A 5th rank fighter (which is the
terminology that Gygax almost adopted); a class E warrior, a fighter of the
fifth circle...heck, you could even just call it an 18,000 XP Fighter and
express the same idea.
And if I'm not mistaken (and I might be, I don't remember), TSR really didn't
specify character levels as part of its complaint; much of the brouhaha was
over their claim to the armor class rating. There's an infinite number of
ways to express that, too: Leather Armor doesn't have to be "AC 8." It could
be part of a system that ranked armors in steps of 10, or 100, or one that
climbed from 0 to 20, with a naked man being AC0 and Leather Armor being
AC 2.
Heck, just check all those other non-AD&D game systems out there: They've
all expressed the idea of leather armor as a protective rating, without ever
once calling it "AC 8." Obviously, there's more than one way to express these
ideas.
>I see no other reasonable way to say "A 5th level fighter", that conveys
>the same information. Can you?
Yup; see above.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>used, without license, in many published materials out there, some of which,
Hmm...I'd have to guess that you've been told wrong, unless I'm misunderstanding
you. D&D invented the entire industry of role playing games; there weren't
any RPGs published before it, let alone "many published materials."
In fact, I'm almost certain that Dave Arneson invented the concept of "hit
points," since that was the innovation he introduced to CHAINMAIL that opened
the door to him becoming a D&D co-creator. (In CHAINMAIL, a hit=killed.)
But, even if such pre-D&D materials existed, they wouldn't be the issue here:
TSR is claiming that the net.authors have infringed their particular expression
of armor class, for instance, and not that the words "armor class" could
never be used by anyone else ever. For instance, if you gave a class in
armor building, you could certainly call it "armor class" without infringing
anything from TSR; for that matter, you could construct your own game system,
with your own "armor class" ratings, and not infringe TSR's copyrights.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>Or, a more recent example: Coca Cola vs. that Alaska soda outfit that always
>used polar bears in their commericals.
Actually, Xerox, Apple, and Coca Cola are all trademark disputes, not
copyright disputes. And I'm not sure what part of the Microsoft complaint
you're referring to, because it's so complex.
Best,
---Slacker01
Jonathan Hendry
: Now, Do they own those rights? Some people think so, some don't.
: lawyer is that where there is only one way to express an idea with
: reasonable clarity, that expression CANNOT be monopolized or controlled. I
: see no other reasonable way to say "A 5th level fighter", that conveys the
: same information. Can you?
Hmm. I seem to remember that in 1st edition, most levels had a name, like
acolyte, etc. Perhaps these could be used in place? Certainly, if an NPC
is described as "an acolyte in plate mail, carrying a mace" it would not
"infringe" the same way as using "level".
--
Jonathan W. Hendry hen...@mcs.com
Thomas Michael Cantine
then included an appendix that said something like:
"For those readers more familiar with TSR's popular, kludgy and
ruthlessly proprietary AD&D (tm) gaming system, and who wish to adapt the
present work to it (though why anyone would want to us beyond us), this
appendix includes some suggested stats for the characters and items
involved..."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas M. Cantine "My theory, which is mine, is mine.
g932...@mcmaster.ca And I own it, too."
==============================================================================
Ken Farmer
: >An issue raised by my lawyer is that where there is only one way to express
: >an idea with reasonable clarity, that expression CANNOT be monopolized...
: >I see no other reasonable way to say "A 5th level fighter", that conveys
: >the same information.
: Well, you've obviously never played first edition: The PH called them
: "swashbucklers" for about 10 years. There's any number of other ways you
: could express that same idea, anyway: A 5th rank fighter (which is the
: terminology that Gygax almost adopted); a class E warrior, a fighter of the
: fifth circle...heck, you could even just call it an 18,000 XP Fighter and
: express the same idea.
I think that would fail the reasonable-man test. No reasonable players
anywhere (including in the ADND 1st ed days) used the level titles.
Nobody uses the term rank, class, or circle to indicate level. If those
terms were used nobody would know what you're talking about. People
could convert XP to level, but that really doesn't seem like much of a
difference, copyright-wise.
: And if I'm not mistaken (and I might be, I don't remember), TSR really didn't
: specify character levels as part of its complaint; much of the brouhaha was
: over their claim to the armor class rating. There's an infinite number of
: ways to express that, too: Leather Armor doesn't have to be "AC 8." It could
: be part of a system that ranked armors in steps of 10, or 100, or one that
: climbed from 0 to 20, with a naked man being AC0 and Leather Armor being
: AC 2.
: Heck, just check all those other non-AD&D game systems out there: They've
: all expressed the idea of leather armor as a protective rating, without ever
: once calling it "AC 8." Obviously, there's more than one way to express these
: ideas.
Actually, their letters were not very clear about what they didn't like.
No list of verbotin terms was provided. But the message is clear - if it
can be easily used for ADND we want to own it.
How about doing just as Rob Repp recommends in his genericize
description: spell it backwards!
--
Ken Farmer
kfa...@mcimail.com
bo...@angus.mi.org
Manitou Springs, CO
Ken Farmer
: >To quote that message:
: > *****
: >You should also be aware that any items created without a specific licence
: > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >are infringements of TSR copyrights. Such items include (but are not limited
: >to) any software, net.books, modules, tables, stories, or rule modifications
: >which contain elements from our copyrighted properties....
: >^^^^^^^^^^^^^^********^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: >If they didn't claim rights to independently created materials, why would
: >they have to license it?
: Bertil, I'm not sure I'm following your conclusions. The excerpt you posted
: shows TSR claiming infringement for "items....which contain elements from
: [TSR's] copyrighted properties. My question is: If it contains elements from
: TSR's copyrighted properties, then how is it "independently created" material?
: If it's got TSR stuff in it, then it's not "independently created"; and if
: it's independently created, then it doesn't have TSR stuff in it. By that
: measure, TSR isn't claiming ownership of independently created works at all.
Slacker, you're simplifying the creative process into an all-or-nothing
effort. What about distributing a tavern that you describe (based on a
real midaevil English tavern) that also has descriptions of the occupants
in terms of several popular games? Certainly it must now be a
combination of independently created material as well as TSR material.
Now, since they really haven't given a description of what they consider
their copyright to cover, it could be less than 0.01% of the content,
using reletively generic terms, and they may insist it is a violation.
: In fact, if you read further into the message, you see that TSR specifically
: disavows any rights to works that are created independent of its copyrights,
: and actually encourages it.
: Beyond that, you have to understand exactly what they're claiming rights to:
: They're not claiming any rights to the body of your work; they're only claiming
: rights to the copyrighted TSR portions that you've used in it. So they're
: not claiming any rights to the "independently created materials," they're only
: claiming rights to the parts that were created with their copyrights, rather
: than independently.
But aren't they also insisting that you upload these materials to their
bbs where you forfeit ownership?
Jeff Kesselman
Thomas Michael Cantine <g932...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> What if one wrote an adventure using completely "generic" terms, and
>then included an appendix that said something like:
>
> "For those readers more familiar with TSR's popular, kludgy and
>ruthlessly proprietary AD&D (tm) gaming system, and who wish to adapt the
>present work to it (though why anyone would want to us beyond us), this
>appendix includes some suggested stats for the characters and items
>involved..."
>
Well, I like your wording but unfortunately it doesn't change anything.
Either :
A) you are (as I believe) legally allowed to use those peices of
terminology, etc, in which case you've put your reader through
an unecessary third step
or
B) you are not allowed (as Slacker01 believes) to use the TSR
terminology, etc and your appendix is just as illegal as it
woudl have been if it had been in the main body of the work.
So you've gained nothing but an unecessary pain-in-the-rear factor of
looking things up in the appendix.
For a different reason, I'm currently trying to get ahold of ENVOY for
our NETWORLD project. Thsi is a system WotC developed for writing up
characters and such that can be easily translated into any other system.
From what I undrestand, it actually looks alot like FUDGE with written
out translation rules.
This has nothing to do with appeasing TSR, and I'm sure they'll try to
obejct to the translation system (mostly automated) I intend to build for
the project. I'm doign this so people don't HAVE to use TSR's products
to use our work, they can buy anyones system and use the NETWORLD with it.
(For anyone interested, I intend to start an alt.* group this week called
alt.games.frp.networld or soemthign similar. Watch for it! We need
volunteers to help build this thing!)
Jeff Kesselman
Taki Kogoma
message <3e2jct$n...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca> in rec.games.frp.advocacy:
> What if one wrote an adventure using completely "generic" terms, and
>then included an appendix that said something like:
>
> "For those readers more familiar with TSR's popular, kludgy and
>ruthlessly proprietary AD&D (tm) gaming system, and who wish to adapt the
>present work to it (though why anyone would want to us beyond us), this
>appendix includes some suggested stats for the characters and items
>involved..."
Then TSR (Trademark Symbol Required) would sue on the grounds that the
appendix contains their proprietary information and demmand that you
either purchase a lisence or perform an appendectomy...
Or maybe not...
--
Capt. Gym Z. Quirk | "I'll get a life when someone
(Known to some as Taki Kogoma) | demonstrates that it would be
qu...@unm.edu | superior to what I have now."
Veteran of the '91 sf-lovers re-org. | -- Gym Quirk
S. Keith Graham
Well, some relevant issues:
"An acolyte in plate mail, carrying a mace" isn't the same thing as
a "1st level priest with an AC of 1 (because of Dex or some magic item
or other nonsense), carrying a footman's mace (pg XX of PH.)"
Second, for issues that are purely "mechanical", we have suggested
a program called "untsrify" (and its counterpart, tsrify), that can
easily and quickly make these substitutions. As trivia, TSR's legal
counsel has objected strenuously to this, and my own reading of the
copyright law seems to indicate that if the work is infringing before
a simple term's substitution, it is probably infringing after
the substitution. (I even have a quote in Nimmer to that effect.)
Third, a magic using character without spells, or a module that
removes all elements specific to a game world (that it was designed for)
is much less useful. So even if you can work around the issue
of "rounds/STR/AC/HP/Level", you still have half the battle unfought.
("Melf's *, Greyhawk, etc.")
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Joseph Teller
>
> I've heard (from numerous RPG-industry folks) that game mechanics are
>not copyrightable. If that is so, then the terms used in those game
>mechanics aren't either. Since most character/monster/spell stats are
>simply elements of the game mechanics, I would think they aren't
>copyrightable either.
They are evidently not copyrightable under International Law. They are
under United States Law. Unfortunately TSR is a US Corporation.
Jeff Kesselman
Back this up with a quote, please?
Its VERY explicit under US law that ideas cannot be copyrighted only the
EXPRESSION of that idea. When talking about authorship expression means
the written words used to express it.
Jeff Kesselman
Slacker01
>know what you're talking about.
Well, I think you're misapplying the "reasonable man" test. That would only
go to whether infringement occurred; in other words, would a reasonable person
feel that the facts met the law for infringement? It wouldn't (and doesn't)
have anything to do with whether people liked the idea of level titles in the
first edition.
And, BTW, what would have been "unreasonable" about having used them? It's
not that people simply didn't, since most negligence claims come out of the
fact that people should have acted reasonably when they didn't. (I know, it's
really a side issue here, I just wanted to point out the inconsistency in the
theory.)
>If those terms were used, nobody would know what you're talking about.
I think I have to simply disagree. If you gave me a module where someone was
called a "Rank 5 Fighter," and I wanted to play AD&D, I'd have every idea what
character level the guy was supposed to be.
>People could convert XP to level, but that really doesn't seem like much of
>a difference, copyright-wise.
Why not? If you called someone an 18K Warrior, it's a different way to express
the idea of calling him a "fifth level fighter." Remember, Jeff's argument
was that there's just no other way to describe a fifth-level fighter, other
than calling him a "fifth level fighter." Obviously, that's a mistaken
statement.
>Actually, their letters were not very clear about what they didn't like.
>No list of verbotin terms was provided. But the message is clear - if it
>can be easily used for AD&D, [they] want to own it.
Well, I'm not sure about that: As I noted in another letter, much of the
controversy here had to do with the list of things that TSR claimed copyright
to. Maybe we're thinking of different things.
And, although I'm not sure how their message could be clear if their letters
were not, I don't think the message you gleaned was what they said at all:
In fact, Rob Repp has made extensive efforts to show how something could
be written for AD&D without falling under TSR's copyrights. How can that
encouragement be interpreted as TSR's desire to own your work? I guess I'm
just not following.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>effort.
>Certainly it must now be a combination of independently created material
>as well as TSR material.
You're absolutely right, Ken. At the same time, though, look at what TSR is
claiming rights over: only the "elements from their copyrighted properties."
If you combine those elements with independently created work, TSR is still
only claiming rights over those elements, and not the independently created
work, or whatever part of the combination that didn't belong to them to begin
with.
>Now, since they haven't given a description of what they consider their
>copyright to cover...
Actually, that's not quite true. In fact, much of the controversy here has
been over TSR's description of what it considers its copyright to cover.
(Things like armor class, world settings, and so on.)
>But aren't they also insisting that you upload these materials to their
>BBS where you forfeit ownership?
Actually, I don't think that's what the disclaimer there says, but remember:
Jeff wasn't talking about the FTP site disclaimer. He was talking about
the policy statement that was sent to the Jove (and other) locations.
If I remember correctly (and I'm paraphrasing here), Jeff said that the policy
statement made it clear that TSR was trying to seize control of other people's
copyrights. I couldn't see what he was talking about, and neither could a
few other people.
The fact is, I've gone back and read that statement again, and I still don't
see where it is. Maybe Jeff had a different statement in mind, and uploaded
the wrong one from his disc drive, but the one he put up doesn't really
say what he's claiming it does -- not at all.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
people in E-mail a week or two back. (It's the one I was waiting for Jeff
to figure out.) The reason I think it would work is for two reasons:
1.) TSR's claim is based on derivative infrignement: In other words, because
a reasonable gamer could identify the new work as having been adapted from the
old work, it was illegally derivative and therefore an infringement. (And it's
all those red-flag words like hit points, AC, and so on, would encourage a
reasonable gamer to make the connection between the two.) That means TSR is
going to assert a derivative copyright over the entire work, because the
entire work has these indicators laced throughout it, from start to finish.
In other words, it creates the impression that TSR holds a derivative
copyright over the the whole thing.
By putting all of the "TSR terms" in an appendix, TSR could no longer lay any
claim to the overall body of the work: there's nothing in there to indicate
that the main part of the adventure was associated with AD&D, or TSR's
copyrights, in any way. The most TSR could claim is that the appendix
infringed its copyrights, but they would no longer have any chance to lay
claim over the rest of the module. (Which, I'm presuming, is what the net.
authors find so important.)
2.) It would more strongly address the issue of Fair Use, which is a defense
to infringement. TSR might claim that the appendix infringes its copyrights,
but remember: part of the notion of fair use is how extensively the copyrighted
work is used. By collecting all of the AD&D stats in one place, it demonstrates
exactly how incidental the AD&D statistics are to the module as a whole, and
how little is actually taken from the AD&D rulebooks. By lacing these stats
throughout the module, it creates the impression that the whole thing comes
from TSR's copyrights; but putting them in one place, it demonstrates how
small of an amount it actually is.
It also addresses the Fair Use issue of the manner in which the new work
uses the old work: By putting it in an appendix, it emphasizes that you're
just using it to inform the reader of how to adapt an independent work to
TSR's game, rather than taking TSR's copyrighted work outright and turning it
into part of your own adventure.
And, if worse ever came to worst, and a court held that the appendix was still
not fair use, there's still a solution: Just upload the appendix to TSR's
FTP site, while giving the rest of the module distribution everywhere else.
TSR's disclaimer would have no power over the works outside its FTP site, and
you'd only be acknowledging TSR's rights over material that came from TSR
to begin with anyway.
I don't think that's an entirely preferrable option, but again, that's only
if a court found that Fair Use did not apply, and my educated guess is that
it would. But, again, there's also a positive side: TSR would collect only
a fraction of what it otherwise would for the download (a one-page appendix,
rather than a whole module), and the FTP site would end up filled with a
bunch of stat sheets, rather than any useful module. It would make the FTP
site look pretty stupid, it would make TSR itself look pretty stupid, and
it would remove most of the value that TSR is looking to collect from its
totalitarian policies.
Well, that's what I think. BTW, if I can just add something to point 1, I'd
also include appendices on how to adapt your module to other game systems, not
just TSR. It would go further toward defeating the argument that your work
came from AD&D, and it would help out other people who want to play non-TSR
games. (Especially after its conduct here on the net.)
Plus, it would make TSR look /really/ dumb: All the other companies would be
letting you use their stats, while TSR demanded that you go to some FTP site
filled with stat sheets to get theirs, if a court had ruled against fair use.
All of this goes to a larger point, and that's that I think it's time people
stopped /fighting/ TSR on this, and started cooperating with TSR to show them
exactly how stupid and pointless much of its position has been. It's one thing
to dig your heels in and call TSR every name in the book, but that's not going
to pursuade it to change its policy; at best, it's going to make them tune
you out. But show them how stupid and unprofitable its policy is, and even
TSR won't stick to a losing proposition that garners them no money and makes
them look like dumbasses in the process.
All imho, of course.
Best,
---Slacker01
<BTW, make sure you talk to your lawyer ahead of time; this is just how I'd
handle the solution for myself.>
John R. Cooper
<72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >I've heard that game mechanics are not copyrightable. If that is so, then
> >the terms used in those game mechanics aren't either.
>
> Why would you come to that conclusion? You're absolutely right that "game
> mechanics" aren't copyrightable, but how you express those game mechanics
> is entirely under the province of copyright. For instance, the directions
> on how to play Scrabble are copyrighted; even though you cannot copyright
> the game mechanic of putting tiles on a grid to spell out words and score
> points.
Well, I'm confident that it can be adequately demonstrated that terms
such as Armor Class, Hit Point, Level, Saving Throw, Strength, Dexterity,
Magic Resistance, Hit Dice, and so on are integral elements of the game
mechanics. So much so that they, in effect, _are_ the game mechanics.
The only thing that I can see as copyrightable is the actual text of
the rules. I.e., the explanations of the game mechanics, not the mechanics
themselves. TSR can copyright the way _they_ explain the use of THAC0 and
Armor Class and Hit Points, but not the mechanics themselves (of which
THAC0 and Armor Class are simply components).
-John
John R. Cooper
<72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure about that: As I noted in another letter, much of the
> controversy here had to do with the list of things that TSR claimed copyright
> to. Maybe we're thinking of different things.
I've heard (from numerous RPG-industry folks) that game mechanics are
not copyrightable. If that is so, then the terms used in those game
mechanics aren't either. Since most character/monster/spell stats are
simply elements of the game mechanics, I would think they aren't
copyrightable either.
It doesn't really matter that the AD&D rules are published as books
(and are themselves protected by copyrights). What matters is that the
_concepts_ described in those texts are GAME MECHANICS and not subject to
copyright or trademark protection.
But then, maybe I (and everyone I spoke to about this at GenCon this
past summer) is wrong about this. Maybe game mechanics _are_ subject to
some sort of intellectual property protection. But if not, then I don't
think TSR has a leg to stand on (aside from its ability to simply bully
everyone into submission with threats of legal action).
-John
Slacker01
>the terms used in those game mechanics aren't either.
Why would you come to that conclusion? You're absolutely right that "game
mechanics" aren't copyrightable, but how you express those game mechanics
is entirely under the province of copyright. For instance, the directions
on how to play Scrabble are copyrighted; even though you cannot copyright
the game mechanic of putting tiles on a grid to spell out words and score
points.
Best,
---Slacker01
John R. Cooper
<72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> 1.) TSR's claim is based on derivative infrignement: In other words, because
> a reasonable gamer could identify the new work as having been adapted from the
> old work, it was illegally derivative and therefore an infringement. (And it's
> all those red-flag words like hit points, AC, and so on, would encourage a
> reasonable gamer to make the connection between the two.) That means TSR is
> going to assert a derivative copyright over the entire work, because the
> entire work has these indicators laced throughout it, from start to finish.
> In other words, it creates the impression that TSR holds a derivative
> copyright over the the whole thing.
Well, I for one dispute the notion that net.books which use xD&D game
mechanics are "derivative" in any way meaningful to an intellectual
property infringement suit. If they use a particular setting (Dark Sun,
Ravenloft, et al) or characters from them (Strahd, Lord Soth, etc.) then I
see reasonable grounds for an infringement suit. But the use of the AD&D
game mechanics to produce a new world with new characters and monsters
stretches the definition of "derivative" too far to be taken seriously
(IMO, that is). Any court which disagrees with me is silly and should be
taken out and thrashed thoroughly with a +6 Whip-o-Wet-Noodles.
Seriously, as I've said before, the only court that I can envision
judging in favor of TSR on this is a kangaroo court.
-John
Jeff Kesselman
John,
The law specificly states that terminology is EXCLUDED from copyrigth
protection. Any terms coined, no matter how original or unique,
immediately become part of the english language and thus public domain.
If you'ld like, I can send you some arguments I put together from reading
The Copyright Handbook by Atty Stepen Fishamn. If you are intrested in
this subject I STRONGLY suggest you pick up a copy. Having solid legal
info makes it MUCH less easy for people to BS you.
Jeff Kesselman
Jonathan Sari
Slacker01 <72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>letting you use their stats, while TSR demanded that you go to some FTP site
>filled with stat sheets to get theirs, if a court had ruled against fair use.
They already look (at least to my eyes) *really* dumb. *All* the other
companies promote net distribution of products associated with their
games, and a great many allow other companies to produce products supporting
their games.
>All of this goes to a larger point, and that's that I think it's time people
>stopped /fighting/ TSR on this, and started cooperating with TSR to show them
>exactly how stupid and pointless much of its position has been. It's one thing
>to dig your heels in and call TSR every name in the book, but that's not going
>to pursuade it to change its policy; at best, it's going to make them tune
>you out. But show them how stupid and unprofitable its policy is, and even
>TSR won't stick to a losing proposition that garners them no money and makes
>them look like dumbasses in the process.
Past experience tells me that TSR will *not* change its policy, regardless
of how many people cooperate with them. They have been in the process of
becoming more and more insular over time. Why would I possibly believe that
they will suddenly reverse all of that "progress"?
-Jon
--
Jonathan Sari (su...@io.com)
WWW home page: http://www.cqs.washington.edu/~surge/index.html
MARCUS L. STONE
: In article <3e482g$qtp$3...@mhadg.production.compuserve.com>,
I don't think that the problem with TSR is that they ARE tuning us out,
but more of they HAVE tunED us out. My beef with TSR is not as much
WHAT they are doing as HOW they are going about it. What they should
have done was to say something like "Hey, the lawyers tell me we need to
do something and and would like to discuss options with you. But a
decision needs to be made before x date. This is the situation." But,
it is now too late and 20/20 hindsight is much better. But, the
situation can still be worked with by saying something like "We know you
have problems with our policy, please help us to make it better for
everyone. Give me input by x date." TSR does not see a problem on the
net because they do not pay attention to what is happening here anymore.
Their 'presence on the net' was to close down FTP sites, try to gloss
things over, and then pull out when things got too hot. The only
remnatant of their precence is a list of FTP sites that numbers 1 and a
whole bunch of pissed off customers and former customers.
Their great site on AOL has yet to appear. They even advertised it in
Dragon and yet it is not there. I was about to leave RPGs when I
discovered the amount of info on the net and got back in. Half the
things I bought after that were because they were being discussed on the
net and I thought they sounded worth while. That discussion could come
to an end as well. By their own policies, anything that contains things
they claim as being either copyrighted or trademarked (I won't get into
the whole argument their) either can not be published (and don't try to
say newsgroups aren't publishing) or must be approved by them and
contain their disclaimer. That means that the newsgroups could be shut
down (in theory at least) and they probably have asked IF they COULD be.
I don't think it will happen, but I wouldn't put it past them. After
all, they are in direct competition with various columns in Dragon.
I have taken my money and walked, but I still hope TSR will find a way
to bring me back. I spent over 12 years as a DM and more money than I
want to calculate on TSRs products and I would like to continue doing
business with them, but can not do so with a clear conscience. The
worst part was that TSR started all this while I was taking a marketing
class (yes, I'm a business student) and it violates several marketing
ideas. The most important being "Business cares about consumer wants."
That comes directly from my notes as being of prime importance.
Word of mouth advertising can be a powerful instrument in selling a
product. before all the flak, most of the discussion on the net
concerning TSR was good, with a little bad thrown in. Now, it is almost
all 'neutral' with a healthy amount of bad and a few die-hards as
defending it. Word of mouth can also be very damaging. For many years
I spoke well of TSR. Now I tell others to 'try something else'. Not as
a permanent thing, but just to see if there is a better system for them.
My group found one for us, but I won't push it. The fiasco with TSR
soured me toward the whole industry, and if it weren't for my group, I
would have called it quits. I've rambled enough. I hope that the new
year will bring new policies and that they will bring me back, but I
don't think TSR could bring me back 'all the way', but there are several
products they have put out that I am very interested in.
: -Jon
: --
: Jonathan Sari (su...@io.com)
: WWW home page: http://www.cqs.washington.edu/~surge/index.html
--
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
| Endless Loop; n.: See Loop, Endless | O'Toole's Law: |
| Loop, Endless; n.: See Endless Loop | Murphy was an optimist. |
+-------------------------------------+--------+-----------------------+
| mst...@osf1.gmu.edu | |
| myt...@io.com | http://io.com/user/mythril |
| myth...@aol.com | |
+-------------------------------------+--------------------------------+
Tim Dunn
>The most TSR could claim is that the appendix infringed its copyrights, but
>they would no longer have any chance to lay claim over the rest of the module.
>(Which, I'm presuming, is what the net.authors find so important.)
As a possible net.author (though not of xD&D material) I'll step forward
to disagree with this.
It's not so much that TSR can "lay claim" to the rest of the module that I've
worked so hard on (substitute "Hero" or "RTG" or whichever game company that
I *might* write net.material for).
It's that they think they have the right to do so, merely because I used AC.
Or ECV (Hero System). Or MV (RTG's Mekton).
Tim
--
"... if the Internet was a country, we'd have enough people to qualify for a
seat on the UN Security Council." -- Than...@interaccess.com
Tim Dunn
>My beef with TSR is not as much WHAT they are doing as HOW they are going
>was to close down FTP sites, try to gloss things over, and then pull out when
>things got too hot.
Remind you of another "industry giant" in another industry that was recently
"taken down a few notches" because they styled their net.damage.control
system after Watergate?
I'll give you a hint: the name begins with an "I" and ends with a "ntel".
dr...@wbb.com
IT>In article <john-31129...@cooper.terranet.com>
IT>jo...@cooper.terranet.com writes:
IT>>
IT>> I've heard (from numerous RPG-industry folks) that game mechanics are
IT>>not copyrightable. If that is so, then the terms used in those game
IT>>mechanics aren't either. Since most character/monster/spell stats are
IT>>simply elements of the game mechanics, I would think they aren't
IT>>copyrightable either.
IT> They are evidently not copyrightable under International Law. They are
IT> under United States Law. Unfortunately TSR is a US Corporation.
Oh, cool! The solution is obvious. The InterNet appears to be able
to ignore a given country's laws as surely as a multi-national
corporation plays around with differences in corporate regulation
between countries.
If people want to go on storing their own creations for AD&D without
ever the threat of TSR legal action, set up a site in nearby Canada to
store the files. Canada is intimately connected to the US in InterNet,
but if files related to AD&D monsters, spells, or adventures created by
individual fans are stored on such a site, there is nothing TSR could do
about it under international law. Robert A. Heinlein once referred to
Canada as "a place where the people were so clever they figured out a
way not to pay taxes to Washington".
Slacker01
>What they should have done was to say something like "Hey, the lawyers tell
>decision needs to be made before x date. This is the situation."
I'm in nearly 100% agreement with you Marcus -- and I'm inclined to agree with
much of the sentiment in the rest of your post, too. Remember, though, that
a lot of the criticism here on the net is more about what they are doing, and
less about exactly how they
've gone about it.
As to the AOL site, I was suprised to even see that ad at all. I'm told the
site won't be ready for a little while (though I may have heard wrong), and
the fact is TSR is not "now in cyberspace" -- it's been there for five or
six years, particularly with the TSR Roundtable on GEnie.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>mechanics are "derivative" in any way meaningful to an intellectual
>property infringement suit.
The test for derivative infringement here is whether: a reasonable gamer
would identify the second work as having been adapted from the first work.
If the answer is yes, then the derivation is what you describe as "meaningful,"
to an intellectual property suit.
That's a question of fact, answered by a jury, so it's going to vary from case
to case. (In other words, it will depend on the source work, and the subsequent
work.) As a reasonable gamer, you can also answer the question for yourself,
but I don't think you'd need what you describe as a "kangaroo court" for
that question to be answered one way or another.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>they think they have the right to do so.
Tim --
Well, in that respect, what you've really got is a difference in philosophies
about intellectual property rights, and there's not much TSR can do for you to
remedy that. In other words, you're objecting to the way they think, not the
way they act, and in that respect a change in TSR's conduct alone isn't going
to pacify your disagreement.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>that they, in effect, _are_ the game mechanics.
I'm not sure I'm so confident, but remember, what we call game mechanics and
what copyright law calls "game mechanics" are most likely two different things.
In other words, Gary Gygax probably did not sit down with a federal magistrate
and have a discussion on copyright law, when he decided to call things like
AC, HP and so on "game mechanics." It's my general impression (I'd have to
look into it further) that "game mechanics" addresses the notion of the
way a game is played; so, for instance, Gary Gygax could not copyright the
process by which a roleplaying game is played -- even though he was one of the
inventors.
And remember: it's fairly indisputed that TSR's armor class /table/ would be
within its copyright; but by your argument, "armor class" would be a game
mechanic and therefore not subject to copyright.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>>Armor Class and Hit Points, but not the mechanics themselves (of which
>John, the law specifically states that terminology is EXCLUDED from copyrigth
>protection. Any terms coined, no matter how original or unique, immediately
>become part of the english language and thus public domain.
I'm not sure what "terms coined" or "terminology" has to do with it; John
was talking about whether what we call AD&D game mechanics can be copyrighted,
such as the armor class or THAC0 setup, not whether the words "Armor Class"
or "THAC0" can be copyrighted. (My guess is that's a result of deleting half
of a conversation and then trying to participate in it.)
Remember, TSR is not claiming copyright in the words "armor class"; it is
claiming copyright in its expression of an armor class system. You can write
an entire FTP file with nothing but the words "armor class" repeated a hundred
thousand times, and it would be entirely beyond the scope of TSR's claim; but
write a module in which you say "Leather Armor = Armor Class 8," and (TSR
claims) you've used the copyrighted expression of its armor class system.
Best,
---Slacker01
Douglas Jacob Richard Jackson
fact, I write this with a certain amount of confusion. Please correct me
if I am wrong, but is T$R trying to enforce a copyright or trademark on
various terms relevant to describing NPC's/items that may be put forward
in elctronic gaming aids? To me this is (a) a sheerly bloody-minded
attempt by these people to grab whatever they can and to hell with the
consequences and (b) almost impossible to enforce anyway.
Posit: You create a campaign setting or whatever, and eventually you come
to the point where you have to descibe the abilities of various NPC's.
Now, you (to avoid having a large and hairy lawyer attack you) carefully
go through your achievement and remove ALL of the terms that can possibly
be viewed as "actionable". You are _still_ left with the situation of
describing the NPC as a 5th level Fighter with a +n Longsword, (just to
cite an example). Are they trying to claim that "Nth Level <class>" and
"+n <weapon>" are their terms and theirs alone? HOGWASH! What are they
going to do next? Take the makers of Role Master or Runequest to court
because they have some of the same TERMS of reference ("level" and "hit
points" are two that I can immediately think of off hand) in their games?
From what I remember of "The Dungeon Master's Guide"((tm) and (c) TSR)
there was a small section encouraging the DM to adopt, modify and create
whatever rules that were felt neccessary to improve gameplay. People did
this in droves, and various rules, items and settings were born.
Given the nature of the Internet, it seemed only natural that people,
proud of what they had created, chose to share what they had made. T$R
had a golden opportunity to use this as a breeding ground for future
writers and developers of their products, and they messed it up. This is
their loss, and I'm sure that many other gaming companies watched what
happened with interest, and (it is hoped) won't make the same mistake.
I used to play D&D and AD&D before T$R decided to turn a once fine game
into "Dungeons and Milchcows". It appears to me that T$R is intent solely
upon gouging as much cash out of the paying public as possible, which is a
pity really, as they are in the process of cutting their own throats in
doing so.
My thanks to you for reading my musings on this matter, and I do hope that
I have not inadvertantly rehashed old ground.
--
+------------Douglas Jackson-Prospective student of Philosophy------------+
| Going on means going far. Going far means returning. - Tao Te-Ching |
+----Email: 944...@edna.cc.swin.edu.au-----Oddball@empire.apana.org.au----+
Jihad Code: B----- US+ TF++ GM++++ **TM F++++ MA FP+++++ PA
Joseph Teller
>judging in favor of TSR on this is a kangaroo court.
>
>-John
Nothing new, TSR is very good at finding kangaroo courts, America is
full of them. Remember we have the best Justice system money can buy,
literally.
Tinggaard
> class" which are clearly used, without license, in many published
> materials out there, some of which, I am told, date to BEFORE *D&D.
Armor class in the sense that its used in AD&D? Interesting...
Again, I think TSRs claims in relation to AD&D copyrights are a bit
questionable, but I think that the more times I use Armor Class, hit
points, To Hit Armor Class Zero, and Drow [or, even worse, AC, hp, THAC0,
and Drizzt] in the body of my text, the stronger the appearance of
infringement seems.
I think.
LEGAL NOTE: The above text includes a multitude of letters and words that
are probably the property of TSR. No effort has been made to properly
acknowledge TSRs ownership of anything. So sue me.
E.M.
Tinggaard
> then included an appendix that said something like:
>
and >items involved..."
Mebbe this example should be forwarded to Palladium? I suspect someone
there could tell us all about why this is a no-no... :)
E.M.
LEGAL NOTE: The above contains several combinations of letters that had
been claimed as trademarks by someone, somewhere (not the least of which
is Kevin Sembiada and Palladium, I would suspect). No attempt has been
made to properly acknowledge ownership. So sue me.
Tinggaard
> such as Armor Class, Hit Point, Level, Saving Throw, Strength,
> Dexterity, Magic Resistance, Hit Dice, and so on are integral elements
of > the game mechanics. So much so that they, in effect, _are_ the game
> mechanics.
You should have tried to demonstrate that the above terms are game
mechnics then... cause they aint.
See:
ARMOR CLASS could be Defense Rating, Protection Rating, or [from Steve
Millers NUELOW net.freebie] Armor Rating
HIT POINTS could be Toughness or [as Role Aids put it] Hits to Kill or
[from Steve Millers NUELOW net.freebie RPG] Healt Rating.
LEVEL could be Rating, Circle, Life Experience, or Grizzledness.
SAVING THROW could be Resistance, [or from Steve Millers NUELOW
net.freebie RPG] Attribute Check.
STRENGTH, DEXTERITY...: I didnt know anyone was claiming character stats
as anything but a mechanic, but one need not use the AD&D array of words.
Power, Agility, Nimbleness, and any number of words from the synonym book
will do just fine.
MAGIC RESISTANCE: See Saving Throw, or possibly Strange Effect Caused by
Being Visiting From a Different Reality.
HIT DICE: Hmm... aside from See Level, nothing comes to mind. (After all,
HIT DICE is just another way of expressing the level system... isnt it?)
MEchanics and the expression of the mechanics are two different things. If
I express AD&D mechanics using nothing but AD&D terms, I think a
hysterical lawyer might be able to claim that Ive committed copyright
infringement...
I think...
E.M.
LEGAL NOTE: The above text contains any number of terms that have claimed
as trademarks, copyrights, and security blankets by TSR, Steven Miller,
and probably a visitor or two from Pluto. No attempt has been made to
Tinggaard
> protection. Any terms coined, no matter how original or unique,
> immediately become part of the english language and thus public
> domain.
Ohmigod, JEFF! Youve just put all the trademark lawyers out of business!
Oh well, so much for the Republicans cutting the deficit by cutting
welfare; all their buddies from law school and their families are going to
be on the dole.
E.M.
S. Keith Graham
>Remember, TSR is not claiming copyright in the words "armor class"; it is
>claiming copyright in its expression of an armor class system. You can write
>an entire FTP file with nothing but the words "armor class" repeated a hundred
>thousand times, and it would be entirely beyond the scope of TSR's claim; but
>write a module in which you say "Leather Armor = Armor Class 8," and (TSR
>claims) you've used the copyrighted expression of its armor class system.
However, it should be noted that many uses of the game mechanic "AC"
(to pick a good example), don't reprint an entry from TSR's tables.
Your example is not the best, because normally you use the "AC system"
without reprinting an entry like you indicate.
You look up Dexterity, Armor types, magical modifiers, and merge these
into a new creation. For example, Bonehead the theif has an AC of 4.
From this fact, you can't recreate TSR's table entries. (Sometimes,
it turns out that the table entry happens to match the characters
final AC, but this can not be assumed from reading a character description.)
If you create a new protection spell, you say "it provides protection
equal to AC 0". This doesn't give the reader any idea what TSR's
copyrighted table contains. This is use of the *system*, without
including entries from their literal tables.
Similiarly, if you refer to a "troll with 22 HP", you haven't told
the reader how many HD a troll has. You've created a new troll, and
expressed that particuliar troll in AD&D terms. But as long as you
don't include the troll's AC/HD/move rate/attacks/damage per attack
in your description, you haven't included any information directly
from TSR's tables. (Nor should you have any need to do so.) But
the exact number of HP the troll has might be relevant to game
balance and even the plot. (i.e. a really weak troll or a really
powerful troll probably act differently.)
They almost certainly do not have protection on calling something
"Armor Class", nor on a d20 to hit, with each step of Armor Class
reducing the chance to hit by 1. (And since armor's relative
merits are arguably a matter of historical record, listing them
in the given order is probably not copyrightable. The exact
table may well be protected, but I'd argue strongly against a
different presentation of the same order being a violation.)
And this doesn't address the issue of "1 round = 1 minute, 1 turn =
10 minutes." While it is not necessary to include the AD&D terms,
I don't think they have any copyright protection. (Similiarly
for the units of distance.) (Of course, the exact wording of the
paragraph is protected, but the ideas listed above aren't, IMO.)
But this is a moot point if TSR brings suit against anyone
who publishes a work that contains only units of measure and
does not contain any reference to "universe fiction".
(For example, a blank character sheet that contains no tables
or instructions from TSR's manuals, and just contains blanks
and names of attributes does not appear to violate their copyright
based on my reading. However, by the file names, TSR was objecting
to several character sheets being available for ftp. Typically,
a character sheet will not contain any names of spells, places,
races, monsters, etc.)
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Andrew Finch
: : Past experience tells me that TSR will *not* change its policy, regardless
: : of how many people cooperate with them. They have been in the process of
: : becoming more and more insular over time. Why would I possibly believe that
: : they will suddenly reverse all of that "progress"?
I have to say that I wish TSR all the luck in the world on their present
policies. I hope they get everything they want. I have not touched their
products in over 7 years, and I can't think of a game system I would
rather play less of. This can only serve to help bring some market share
to more deserving companies, with more innovative products.
I am terribly biased, and I just can't bring myself to see this as a loss
for the industry, or the gaming community.
David
Ken Farmer
Here's my 313k magic-flinger preparing for an encounter:
First the defensive spells:
1. Skin-so-Hard
2. Lesser sphere of major resistence
3. Enhenced resistence to everyday aerial projectiles
4. Reflected visions
Then the offensive spells:
1. Make-him-like-me
2. Hotball
3. Paranormal Missile
4. Somebody-a-ruther's-ball-o-cold
5. Somebody-a-ruther's-missile-of-acidic-solution
6. Somebody-a-ruther's-change-into-a-man-o-violence
(This of course, allows him to fight as a man-o-violence of twice
the converted *whatever* that my magic-flingers 313k of experience
would be!)
--
Ken Farmer
kfa...@usa.net
603...@mcimail.com
bo...@angus.mi.org
Manitou Springs, CO
Entropy Labs
I once heard that TSR had trademarked the word "Nazi". According to my
layman's understanding of trademarking, a trademark is a <word> which is
supposed to remind you of the company. So, I told the friend who gave me
the above information, "Okay, whenever I hear the word 'Nazi', I'll think
of TSR." We had a few laughs, hope you do too.
(Does anyone remember that Image Comics trademarked the word "Stupid"?
Just wondering...)
Aj. (Who has trouble not finding sick humor in everything.)
Jonathan Hendry
>Proof you don't need to use TSR terminology:
I prefer "John Q. Mage's Ph-balanced-made-for-a-kobold-but-strong-enough-
for-a-Lich Liquid Projectile"
--
Jonathan W. Hendry hen...@mcs.com
Jeff Kesselman
>Proof you don't need to use TSR terminology:
>
>Here's my 313k magic-flinger preparing for an encounter:
>
>First the defensive spells:
> 1. Skin-so-Hard
> 2. Lesser sphere of major resistence
> 3. Enhenced resistence to everyday aerial projectiles
> 4. Reflected visions
>
>Then the offensive spells:
> 1. Make-him-like-me
> 2. Hotball
> 3. Paranormal Missile
> 4. Somebody-a-ruther's-ball-o-cold
> 5. Somebody-a-ruther's-missile-of-acidic-solution
> 6. Somebody-a-ruther's-change-into-a-man-o-violence
> (This of course, allows him to fight as a man-o-violence of twice
> the converted *whatever* that my magic-flingers 313k of experience
> would be!)
>
>--
Its cute Ken, but its all paraphrases, and as such is the same legally as
using the TSR names. (Keith Grahm even provided a quote from what I
believe was a judge;s decision on a case that stated that the whole idea
that by using alternate words you could make something illegal legal was
totally absurd.)
So why not just go ahead and use the real ones.
Jeff kesselman
P.S. You STILL havent showed me an alternate wording for 7th level
gallant-kit bard :)
Steve Gilham
> > The law specificly states that terminology is EXCLUDED from copyrigth
> > protection. Any terms coined, no matter how original or unique,
> > immediately become part of the english language and thus public
> > domain.
> Ohmigod, JEFF! Youve just put all the trademark lawyers out of business!
^^^^^^^^^
It's time for another rousing chorus that
Copyright != trademark
*sigh*
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Gilham |GDS Ltd.,Wellington Ho. |Lives of great men all remind us
Software Specialist|East Road, Cambridge |We may make our lives sublime
steveg@ |CB1 1BH, UK |And departing, leave behind us
uk.gdscorp.com |Tel:(44)223-300111 x2904|Footprints in the sands of time.
Slacker01
As outrageous as that sounds, that's pretty close to true -- TSR put a (TM)
symbol next to the word "Nazi" in its Indiana Jones roleplaying game. As I
understand it, it was required by the license with Lucasfilms.
Of course, that doesn't make it look any less ridiculous....
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
I might be mistaken, but I think the Palladium dispute was settled out of
court, rather than having the issue adjudicated.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>using the TSR names.
>(Keith Grahm even provided a quote from what I believe was a judge;s decision
>on a case that stated the whole idea that using alternate words you could
>make something illegal legal was totally absurd.)
Not so. That rule essentially only applies to verbatim infringement: in other
words, you can't copy another person's passage verbatim and then simply change
a word here or there to make it your own. The reason: Because there's also
copyright in the underlying selection, arrangement, and presentation of
the work, and you're infringing that even if you're not infringing the
actual words. Since TSR's claim is not based on verbatim infringement, this
rule wouldn't apply.
In fact, TSR has gone so far as to suggest you use alternate words -- such
as spelling the names of magic spells backwards, I think. Obviously, /they/
don't think word substitution would still be infringement; so why should you?
Best,
---Slacker01
Bertil Jonell
Slacker01 <72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>Characters can indeed
>be copyrighted, which is how comic book companies protect the most important
>elements of their comic books.
I looked around in some, and of those I had access to Marvel had the
most sweeping claim, but even they put it like this:
"[NAME] (Including all prominent characters featured in this publication,
and the distinctive likeness thereof) are trademarks of MARVEL ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, INC."
Note the word 'trademarks'.
>So are the rudimentary "elements" that TSR claims copyright over, actually
>qualify for protection? Well, recent courts have indicated (including a
>decision I've just downloaded, which I'll post tomorrow) that the simple
>act of assigning a number to an item like an automobile can constitute
>copyrightable expression, if a minimum level of creativity went into the
>decision of arriving at that particular number. It's the same argument that
>TSR is making, WRT armor class, and the courts have held that small amount
>of expression to be copyrightable.
This can be argued in reverse too: If I use those non-trademarked
elements that bothers T$R so much and add a minimum level of creativity,
then I hold the copyright.
>---Slacker01
-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
exercise for your kill-file."
Thomas Lindgren
Remember, TSR is not claiming copyright in the words "armor class"; it is
claiming copyright in its expression of an armor class system. You can write
an entire FTP file with nothing but the words "armor class" repeated a hundred
thousand times, and it would be entirely beyond the scope of TSR's claim; but
write a module in which you say "Leather Armor = Armor Class 8," and (TSR
claims) you've used the copyrighted expression of its armor class system.
One way of complying with these restrictions would be to use only
uncopyrighted terms, such as "leather armor", etc. in the text,
and leave blank spots nearby, where the GM can fill
in the pertinent information. Perhaps users could write programs
which, when run by each user and for personal use only, fills in the
proper values for the desired system. ("Compiling the module", so to speak :-)
Or such programs could be stored on TSR's ftp-site to not spread the
use of Armor Class or Elven Bladesinger beyond the grasp of TSR.
Thomas
--
Thomas Lindgren, Uppsala University "It's too late. You've awakened
tho...@csd.uu.se, lind...@sics.se the gazebo, and it catches you
http://www.csd.uu.se/~thomasl/home.html and eats you" -- Ed Whitechurch
John R. Cooper
<72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >Well, I for one dispute the notion that net.books which use xD&D game
> >mechanics are "derivative" in any way meaningful to an intellectual
> >property infringement suit.
>
> The test for derivative infringement here is whether: a reasonable gamer
> would identify the second work as having been adapted from the first work.
> If the answer is yes, then the derivation is what you describe as
"meaningful,"
> to an intellectual property suit.
A reasonable gamer would think: Hmm, this net.module doesn't resemble
the Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, or any other TSR book
I've ever seen. You can't own the idea of a module or a rulebook. TSR can
only own the text of their own books, they can't claim rights to
everything written using their game mechanics. Unless a net.book is trying
to reproduce one of TSR's books, I don't see how it can be said to be
derivative.
-John
John R. Cooper
> I have to say that I wish TSR all the luck in the world on their present
> policies. I hope they get everything they want. I have not touched their
> products in over 7 years, and I can't think of a game system I would
> rather play less of. This can only serve to help bring some market share
> to more deserving companies, with more innovative products.
>
> I am terribly biased, and I just can't bring myself to see this as a loss
> for the industry, or the gaming community.
David, while this is a fine sentiment, I worry that TSR will be only
the first among many to do this knd of thing. Once TSR shows everyone how
easy it is to "protect" one's game system from so-called "online
infringements", you may see an ugly trend develop.
TSR and Palladium may be the only companies that appear
litigation-happy at the moment, but there are other companies that are
growing (or have grown) large and probably feel they have much to
"protect" as well (FASA and White Wolf come immediately to mind).
-John
John R. Cooper
<72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
> >Well, I'm confident that it can be adequately demonstrated that terms such as
> >Armor Class (etc.) are integral elements of the game mechanics. So much so
> >that they, in effect, _are_ the game mechanics.
>
> I'm not sure I'm so confident, but remember, what we call game mechanics and
> what copyright law calls "game mechanics" are most likely two different
things.
Well, I would hope (and assume) that the law was based on an informed
understanding of what RPG game mechanics are. "The Law," that faceless
institution that the ordinary citizen can't begin to comprehend, can't
make meaningful judgements if it doesn't understand what it is judging.
I would be interested in hearing what game designers and players alike
feel constitutes "game mechanics" in an RPG (or even a wargame).
> And remember: it's fairly indisputed that TSR's armor class /table/ would be
> within its copyright; but by your argument, "armor class" would be a game
> mechanic and therefore not subject to copyright.
Well, if you want to call the precise layout of that table
copyrightable, fine. But anyone can take the information conveyed by that
table and re-present it without a problem. Look, if you can't copyright
the game mechanics, you can't claim ownership of every expression or
presentation of those mechanics.
Chrysler may have a copyright on the datasheets for its cars, but that
doesn't prevent anyone from taking that information and representing it in
another form (Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, etc.).
-John
Dark Mutant
> David, while this is a fine sentiment, I worry that TSR will be only
>the first among many to do this knd of thing. Once TSR shows everyone how
>easy it is to "protect" one's game system from so-called "online
>infringements", you may see an ugly trend develop.
Yes and no. First off, not all the companies have TSR's resources to
persue this sort of thing. Only the bigger companies can really afford
to try to suppress on-line stuff.
Secondly, this action gives a lot of negative PR. TSR feels that they
are big enough and the on-line community is small enough and their
sales go mainly to non-net.people that they can get away with any
alienation that occurs. I'm not sure how many other companies feel
that way.
> TSR and Palladium may be the only companies that appear
>litigation-happy at the moment, but there are other companies that are
>growing (or have grown) large and probably feel they have much to
>"protect" as well (FASA and White Wolf come immediately to mind).
Palladium was going after a fellow publisher, not the on-line
community, though given the personality at the helm, its probably
only a matter of time before he tries that as well.
White Wolf's little PR disaster here may give some pause for
concern, but if you think about it, they consider people on the Net
who play RPGs to be an important target audiance. They have enough
people at White Wolf who do have a clue about the Net to know that
trying to suppress third party materials on FTP sites would alienate
a good chunk of the target audiance they're after.
As for FASA, GDW, GW and other companies, I can't speak for them or
claim to have studied them in any depth, but I don't think that
they really consider 3rd party materials on the Net to be much of
a problem. Might even consider it free advertising. Of course, in
all cases copyright would be enforced, but I don't think they would
consider adventures set in their worlds to be a big problem. Only
TSR and Palladium have shown any real paranoia about their systems.
--
Martin Terman, Mutant for Hire, Synchronicity Daemon, Priest of Shub-Internet
Disclaimer: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but flames are just ignored
mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu mfte...@pucc.bitnet an7...@anon.penet.fi
"Sig quotes are like bumper stickers, only without the same sense of relevance"
Jonathan Dean
>As for FASA, GDW, GW and other companies, I can't speak for them or
>claim to have studied them in any depth, but I don't think that
>they really consider 3rd party materials on the Net to be much of
>a problem. Might even consider it free advertising. Of course, in
>all cases copyright would be enforced, but I don't think they would
>consider adventures set in their worlds to be a big problem. Only
>TSR and Palladium have shown any real paranoia about their systems.
Sometime last month FASA posted a letter to rec.games.frp.cyber (or
it might have been r.g.mecha) stating their policy towards 3rd party
material on the net. They basically said that as long as no one received
money for such material they were not going to take action.
This came with a caveat that this policy may change in the future if
allowing such material to exist legally forfeits their copyrights on
their published books. From what I read there the whole situation
of 3rd party material on net/copyright situation has not been fully
resolved.
--
Jonathan Dean | "Those who write, think.
jd...@psl.nmsu.edu | Think about it."
Jeff Kesselman
>In article <1995Jan2.1...@Princeton.EDU> mfte...@phoenix.princeton.edu (Dark Mutant) writes:
>>claim to have studied them in any depth, but I don't think that
>>they really consider 3rd party materials on the Net to be much of
>>a problem. Might even consider it free advertising. Of course, in
>>all cases copyright would be enforced, but I don't think they would
>>consider adventures set in their worlds to be a big problem. Only
>>TSR and Palladium have shown any real paranoia about their systems.
>
>it might have been r.g.mecha) stating their policy towards 3rd party
>material on the net. They basically said that as long as no one received
>money for such material they were not going to take action.
>
>This came with a caveat that this policy may change in the future if
>allowing such material to exist legally forfeits their copyrights on
>their published books. From what I read there the whole situation
>of 3rd party material on net/copyright situation has not been fully
>resolved.
>
FASA and TSR both have disclaimers for stuff upload to mpgn. There is
however a major difference between them. There is one more sentance in
the TSR one then the FASA one. THis sentance is a declaration that your
work IS derivative of thiers (thereby givig them extra leverage in
cliaming in court that your work is a derivative work of thier works.)
FASA currently requires no such declaration and dilution of the poster's
rights.
Jeff Kesselman
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer and the above should not be considered
legal advice.]
[NOTE: Slacker01 is in my kill file. Any failure on my part to respond
to his comments on my posts means nothing, as I simply don't see the
comments.]
Slacker01
>understanding of what RPG game mechanics are.
Actually, John, copyright law was created about a gazillion decades before
Gary Gygax was even born, let alone helped invent Role-Playing Games. :)
No, seriously, I think the rules regarding "game mechanics" were developed
sometime around the 1930s, which would significantly predate any development
of what we think of as FRP's. So it's not so much that the law doesn't
"understand" FRPs; it's that when the law talks about "game mechanics,"
it's referring to something essentially different than what Gary Gygax --
and later the rest of the industry -- decided to also refer to as "game
mechanics." In other words, it's the gamers who have adopted the legal
word imprecisely, not the other way around.
What are "game mechanics", as the law refers to them? Essentially, it's the
way you play a game: for example, as I noted earlier, you can copyright the
written directions on how to play Scrabble; but you cannot copyright the
process of putting lettered tiles on a grid to score points.
The same holds true for AD&D (and every other game system, for that matter):
The company can hold a copyright in the written directions on how to play the
game, but the company cannot copyright the notion of acting out fantasy
adventures using dice and statistics. (Which is how so many other games and
publishers came about.)
It's pretty clear that most of the things that we call "game mechanics" --
armor class tables, THAC0 charts, and so on -- are actually the written
directions on how to play the game, and not the actual way the game itself
is played. In other words, we can call them "game mechanics" all we want, but
that doesn't mean they meet the legal definition.
>Look, if you can't copyright the game mechanics, you can't claim ownership
>of every expression or presentation of those mechanics.
Actually, that's where you're wrong; Copyright's role is exactly to cover
the "expression" of an idea; it just can't cover the idea (i.e., the game
mechanic) itself.
>Chrysler may have a copyright on the datasheets for its cars, but that
>doesn't prevent anyone from taking that information and representing it in
>another form (Consumer Reports, Car and Driver, etc.)
Actually, those are examples of Fair Use, not whether Chrysler holds the
appropriate copyrights. As part of your copyright, you hold the exclusive
right to derivate your work, the same way you hold the exclusive right to
copy, distribute, display or perform your work.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>Player's Handbook, the Dungeon Master's Guide, or any other TSR book I've
>ever seen.
You're right, John, in that a net.module would probably not resemble any of
those books, but I think you've misread the test: It's not whether the new
work "resembles" the old work; but whether the reasonable gamer would
identify the new work as having been adapted from the old work.
For instance, and just as an example: "The Wiz" didn't resemble any version
of "The Wizard of Oz" that /I've/ ever seen; but was it adapted from The
Wizard of Oz? Well, sure.
>You can't own the idea of a module or a rulebook.
I completely agree; but again, TSR has not tried to claim that it owns the
idea of a module or a rulebook.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
Well, that's because Marvel has to announce its trademarks if it wants to keep
them, but it doesn't have to announce its copyrights if it wants to keep
them.
But, in fact, it does announce its copyright -- it says: Copyright (c) 1994
Marvel Entertainment Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Again, if you want to check on the validity of character copyrights, look
up the case law from the 1930s and 40s. The cases happen to be well-written,
by brothers August Hand and Learned Hand, two of the most interesting
jurists to ever write from the bench.
In fact, I don't recall offhand, but the 1976 Copyright Act probably codifies
those decisions; I don't remember the specific section numbers.
>...If I use those non-trademarked elements that bothers TSR so much, and
>add a minimum level of creativity, then I hold the copyright.
Well, you're mixing up trademark and copyright there. But I think I understand
what you're saying, and you're right -- but only to an extent. You only
have copyright over that minimum amount of creativity that you've added to
the mix; TSR (or whoever held the original copyright) would still hold
copyright over the part that TSR originated, by way of derivative copyright.
Otherwise, you're interested in a legal system where someone could take
a piece of work that you yourself created, then add in a zip of creativity
and suddenly own everything that you put your hard work into.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>uncopyrighted terms... and leave blank spots nearby. Perhaps users could
>write programs which fills in the proper values for the desired system...
>Such programs could be stored on TSR's ftp-site.
You know, Thomas, that's a brillaint idea. TSR has claimed (and rightfully so)
that such programs would violate its copyrights by way of its source code; but
if such a program were stored at the TSR ftp-site, then it couldn't claim that
any violation occurred. Users could log onto the TSR ftp-site once, to
download the program, and then download the works of net.authors without ever
having to go to TSR ever again.
Best,
---Slacker01
S. Keith Graham
>What are "game mechanics", as the law refers to them? Essentially, it's the
>way you play a game: for example, as I noted earlier, you can copyright the
>written directions on how to play Scrabble; but you cannot copyright the
>process of putting lettered tiles on a grid to score points.
Note however, that you can't copyright the relative values of the tiles,
the locations of the "double word" scores, or the other "game play"
effects. You can copyright the graphics, and other things on the
board, but not the things that make the game play. (And you might
get in trouble for calling it a "double word" score, so you'd have
to put a "x2" in a circle for words, and x2 in a square for words
or something, but the exact same "mechanic" would apply.)
>The same holds true for AD&D (and every other game system, for that matter):
>The company can hold a copyright in the written directions on how to play the
>game, but the company cannot copyright the notion of acting out fantasy
>adventures using dice and statistics. (Which is how so many other games and
>publishers came about.)
Nor can they stop you from making plate mail be an 18 for a beginning
fighter to hit, nor a "fighting-man" from getting D10's as "hitdice".
The one special thing that TSR does get are its "fictional names"
of spells and monsters. That is a much hazier question that isn't
addressed well by existing copyright law about games. (And use
of their names in another system is probably illegal, as they
are also "trademarked", and "fiction".)
>It's pretty clear that most of the things that we call "game mechanics" --
>armor class tables, THAC0 charts, and so on -- are actually the written
>directions on how to play the game, and not the actual way the game itself
>is played. In other words, we can call them "game mechanics" all we want, but
>that doesn't mean they meet the legal definition.
The legal definition of "game mechanics" are roughly akin to the
real world definitions of "car mechanicing". If you give someone
directions to remove a certain part from a certain make and model
of car; nothing stops someone else from writing directions to do
the exact same process as long as they don't copy your directions
literally.
As long as you don't copy TSR's tables, but create different ones
(with perhaps the same "end-result" in terms of odds to hit, etc.)
then you haven't violated the copyright of their game mechanics.
Slacker is making a bit broad of a claim here, because the "game mechanic"
"Roll a D20 to hit, and if you score higher than is indicated by
your rank and their armor rating" is a "game mechanic". Even
the exact numbers on the table aren't protected; except as a literal
table. (Just like the exact words used to describe the auto repair
are protected, but you still have to tell someone to take out screws
A&B before sliding C.)
>>Look, if you can't copyright the game mechanics, you can't claim ownership
>>of every expression or presentation of those mechanics.
>Actually, that's where you're wrong; Copyright's role is exactly to cover
>the "expression" of an idea; it just can't cover the idea (i.e., the game
>mechanic) itself.
Right, the idea that a beginning character has a 5% chance of hitting
someone wearing plate-mail with shield and a very good dex is not
protectable. But the table that lists this probably is.
The net could, if it so desired, "reverse engineer" AD&D, and produce
a completely compatible, free gaming system. (You'd have to change
the spell names, but they could have the exact same relative effects
on the characters, etc.) You might have to change the names of
the game mechanics, but they could be 1:1 compatible with AD&D.
Consult a lawyer if you really want to do this :-)
TSR would, almost certainly, sue, but that's another story.
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Jonathan Hendry
<snip>
>It's pretty clear that most of the things that we call "game mechanics" --
>armor class tables, THAC0 charts, and so on -- are actually the written
>directions on how to play the game, and not the actual way the game itself
>is played. In other words, we can call them "game mechanics" all we want, but
>that doesn't mean they meet the legal definition.
Are the tables and charts of ADND "written directions" or are they
simply play aids? A table for calculating net present value is not the
same thing as directions for calculating net present value.
If an ADND chart was boiled down to a formula, which was used in, say
a DM aid to calculate to-hit rolls, etc, would that be an infringement?
Jonathan Hendry
>
>Right, the idea that a beginning character has a 5% chance of hitting
>someone wearing plate-mail with shield and a very good dex is not
>protectable. But the table that lists this probably is.
Okay. So, here's a little C program which calculates what a religious-type
guy would need to hit something in full plate armor and shield, up to level 25.
#include <stdio.h>
main()
{
int i;
int score;
int modif;
score=modif=0;
for(i=1;i<=25;i++)
{
modif=2*((i-1)/3);
score=20-modif;
fprintf(stdout,"At level %d you need a %d\n",i,score);
}
return 0;
}
Notice that nowhere do I use a TSR term. Nor do I use a coded version of their
tables.
Where, exactly, would this stand?
Slacker?
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
<Since Rob Repp declared posts "ok" I figure I'm safe posting this.>
Steve Gilham
Adding to that, one can check the indicia of various TSR publications.
In AD&D2 and the D&D cyclopedia (I don't have the AD&D1 books to hand,
nor any of the D&D boxes) they carefully state "This is a derivative
work", pointing to its inheritance from the earlier rule books.
Scan however hard one might, the same statement cannot be found in any
module or campaign setting (I don't have the 2nd cut FR or Ravenloft
boxes, which might state that they derive from the previous versions).
So it would seem that they don't consider those to be derivative works.
Regarding
> > would identify the second work as having been adapted from the first work.
there is the substantial natural language difference of being adapted
from, and either being adapted *to* or *for use with*; or even "stated
in terms of". Citing an earlier example of mine, a module based on the
events of "Much Ado" would clearly be adapted from the Shakespeare in
the direction of TSR terminology (assuming that were the game system
used for implementation)
Steve Gilham
> >Look, if you can't copyright the game mechanics, you can't claim ownership
> >of every expression or presentation of those mechanics.
^^^^^
> Actually, that's where you're wrong; Copyright's role is exactly to cover
> the "expression" of an idea; it just can't cover the idea (i.e., the game
^^^
> mechanic) itself.
Compare the emphasised words.
The copyright, if it is not not constitute a lock on the *idea* cannot
be a means to cover *every* potential alternative expression of that idea.
Jeff Kesselman
>S. Keith Graham writes
>>
>>Right, the idea that a beginning character has a 5% chance of hitting
>>someone wearing plate-mail with shield and a very good dex is not
>>protectable. But the table that lists this probably is.
>
>guy would need to hit something in full plate armor and shield, up to level 25.
>
>#include <stdio.h>
>main()
>{
>
> int i;
> int score;
> int modif;
>
> score=modif=0;
>
> for(i=1;i<=25;i++)
> {
> modif=2*((i-1)/3);
>
> score=20-modif;
> fprintf(stdout,"At level %d you need a %d\n",i,score);
> }
>
> return 0;
>}
>
>Notice that nowhere do I use a TSR term. Nor do I use a coded version of their
>tables.
>
>Where, exactly, would this stand?
>
>Slacker?
>
>Anyone?
>
>Anyone?
>
Anyone. :)
This is a REAL exampel of a derivative work, though its so trivial by
itself that it brings up issues of fair-use (which are thornier.)
You have taken the expression, the table, and converted it to a new
medium of expression. It can be used to repalce that table, and gives no
new information, so its a pretty purely derivative thing.
Does that help?
(Slacker will probobly agree with my conclusion and argue with the way I
reached it, picking apart my words. Enjoy it, as I won't see it. I hope
the concepts conveyed were of value to you.)
Jeff Kesselman
[DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer, and the above should not be construed as
legal advice.]
[NOTE: Slacker01 is in my kill file. Failure on my part to respond to any
comments he has about my posts means absolutely nothing, as I simply
don't see his comments.]
Jonathan Sari
Jeff Kesselman <jef...@netcom.com> wrote:
>Its cute Ken, but its all paraphrases, and as such is the same legally as
>using the TSR names. (Keith Grahm even provided a quote from what I
>believe was a judge's decision on a case that stated that the whole idea
>that by using alternate words you could make something illegal legal was
>totally absurd.)
This is subjective, and would almost certainly be determined on a
case-by-case basis.
For example,
"It is attractive, Kenneth, although it is entirely alternate wordings,
additionally thus it's identical in a legal sense to use of They Sue
Regularly's monikers."
is probably a violation of your copyright, because of the lack of creativity
involved.
Whereas,
"I like the sentiment, Ken, but it's substantially identical to TSR's version,
and thus not legally fundamentally different."
is probably not, even though they both say the same thing.
Of course, this particular use doubtlessly falls under fair use, but you see
my point.
-Jon
--
Jonathan Sari (su...@io.com)
WWW home page: http://www.cqs.washington.edu/~surge/index.html
Slacker01
>play aids?
I'm not sure of the distinction you're trying to make, Jon. Copyright law
doesn't carve out a distinction for "play aids" as being ineligible for
copyright protection.
>A table for calculating net present value is not the same thing as directions
>for calculating net present value.
Well, I suppose you can make that distinction, but remember: it's fairly
inarguable that TSR holds copyrights in the combat and armor class tables.
So far as I can tell, that's not in dispute.
Best,
---Slacker01
Jonathan Sari
Slacker01 <72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>You're right, John, in that a net.module would probably not resemble any of
>those books, but I think you've misread the test: It's not whether the new
>work "resembles" the old work; but whether the reasonable gamer would
>identify the new work as having been adapted from the old work.
I consider myself a reasonable gamer. I recognize all role-playing games
as having been adapted from D&D. Does that mean TSR owns all role-playing
games? Unquestionably no. Would they have tried to claim the right if
they had the money and the legal know-how when Tunnels & Trolls was created?
Who can say?
Your test is not sufficient. "Having been adapted from" is not adequate as
a description.
Slacker01
>the locations of the "double word" scores, or other "game play" effects.
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "game play effects," but I'm fairly
certain the layout of the board is copyrightable. Of course, that's an
academic discussion here, since AD&D doesn't have a board; Scrabble was
just an example.
>The legal definition of "game mechanics" are roughly akin to the real
>world definitions of "car mechanicing."
I'd say that's fairly close, but by saying that you're not really making
any comparisons to what gamers refer to as "game mechanics." Sure, the
directions on how to change a spark plug are probably not subject to copyright,
because there's only so many ways to explain how to change a spark plug.
(This is called the Doctrine of Merger, in which the idea and the expression
merge, because there's only one, or very few, ways to express the idea.)
But, as the proliferation of role-playing games have shows, there's virtually
an unlimited number of ways to express the idea of someone swinging a sword
or an arrow bouncing off of leather armor.
>Slacker is making a bit broad of a claim here, because the "game mechanic"
>"Roll a d20 to hit..." is a "game mechanic."
Well, I didn't mean to make an overbroad statement, but perhaps you've
misunderstood me: I didn't suggest that /nothing/ we think of as a game
mechanic would fall under the legal definition; only that the legal
definition is different than the one that we gamers usually think of.
>Right, the idea that a beginning character has a 5% chance of hitting
>someone wearing plate-mail with shield and a very good dex is not
>protectable.
Well, I think you're confusing the notion of expression and idea there.
For instance, here, the idea is that a beginning character cannot hit an
agile, well-armored opponent. The expression is the number that TSR has
assigned, based (loosely, at least) on how likely TSR thought a beginning
character could hit an agile person in plate mail, what it thought would
be workable for the game in terms of excitement and game balance, along with
the notion that the beginner would jump up in increments of 5%, 10%, or
whatever. The number it assigns is the expression of all those ideas.
Otherwise, what you're really saying is that /nothing/ could be copyrightable;
take a song, for instance: Under your approach, a song could not be copyrighted,
because it's just the idea that an A note would be followed by a C note that
was followed by an F sharp, and so on.
Best,
---Slacker01
S. Keith Graham
>S. Keith Graham writes
>>
>>Right, the idea that a beginning character has a 5% chance of hitting
>>someone wearing plate-mail with shield and a very good dex is not
>>protectable. But the table that lists this probably is.
>Okay. So, here's a little C program which calculates what a religious-type
>guy would need to hit something in full plate armor and shield, up to level 25.
>[C program deleted]
>Notice that nowhere do I use a TSR term. Nor do I use a coded version of their
>tables.
>Where, exactly, would this stand?
Based on my reading of the copyright law, inclusion of this program
or the text it generates (which is different than TSR's table) are
both legal.
But calling it "Armor Class" or "THAC0" or "level" may or may not
cause problems. That point is not clear, IMO, if they are exact
clones of TSR's mechanics. (You run into trademark and misrepresentation
problems more than copyright, most likely.)
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
S. Keith Graham
>>Note, however, that you can't copyright the relative value of the tiles,
>>the locations of the "double word" scores, or other "game play" effects.
>Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "game play effects," but I'm fairly
>certain the layout of the board is copyrightable. Of course, that's an
>academic discussion here, since AD&D doesn't have a board; Scrabble was
>just an example.
But if we can work it out for Scrabble (or Monopoly) then I think
that a large number of situations in AD&D become obvious.
It is my understanding that someone created a game called "Anti-monopoly"
that resulted in the exact same _play_effects_ as Monopoly; but
with differently written rules, cards, etc. (Someone correct me
if I'm wrong here.) This means that the relative costs of everything
in Monopoly had to be recreated (although they may have used "red
chips and blue chips" instead of "$500 and $100 bills".) Given
the exact same sequence of rolls and buying decisions, the same
winner would occur for "Monopoly" as "Anti-monopoly".
As such, the _layout_ of the board is not copyrightable; except
as a specific instance.
>>The legal definition of "game mechanics" are roughly akin to the real
>>world definitions of "car mechanicing."
>I'd say that's fairly close, but by saying that you're not really making
>any comparisons to what gamers refer to as "game mechanics." Sure, the
>directions on how to change a spark plug are probably not subject to copyright,
>because there's only so many ways to explain how to change a spark plug.
>(This is called the Doctrine of Merger, in which the idea and the expression
>merge, because there's only one, or very few, ways to express the idea.)
>But, as the proliferation of role-playing games have shows, there's virtually
>an unlimited number of ways to express the idea of someone swinging a sword
>or an arrow bouncing off of leather armor.
The courts opinion of games in the past is that a game is a process.
You move little tokens around on a board or map, and things happen.
Written rules describe what happens during a game, but aren't really
part of the game itself. They are merely directions for reproducing
the process. The game itself (in all of its detail) is merely an idea;
and you can only trademark the specific rules, board, etc. that you
print. But the game itself is still just an idea.
This is very important, because a process is not copyrightable.
People can (and I'm sure some do) play AD&D without a single
TSR rule book in sight. The process has been explained to them
and now the game exists without the rules. (Given that the rules
are so large and complex, it is unlikely to happen that a person
needs no books nearby, but that doesn't change the fact that the
rules are not the game; merely an expression thereof.)
>Well, I think you're confusing the notion of expression and idea there.
>For instance, here, the idea is that a beginning character cannot hit an
>agile, well-armored opponent. The expression is the number that TSR has
>assigned, based (loosely, at least) on how likely TSR thought a beginning
>character could hit an agile person in plate mail, what it thought would
>be workable for the game in terms of excitement and game balance, along with
>the notion that the beginner would jump up in increments of 5%, 10%, or
>whatever. The number it assigns is the expression of all those ideas.
>Otherwise, what you're really saying is that /nothing/ could be copyrightable;
>take a song, for instance: Under your approach, a song could not be copyrighted,
>because it's just the idea that an A note would be followed by a C note that
>was followed by an F sharp, and so on.
I believe that this was argued at one point, (that music was a process
and that the paper representation wasn't copyrightable) but that was
promptly thrown out as undesirable. But the one or two pages in
Nimmer that refer to games (its a chapter heading) basically support
what I have said. TSR has little or no rights to the entire process
that is referred to as AD&D. (The issue of fictional creations is
another story, and how that relates to game mechanics has not seen
the inside of a courtroom.)
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Thomas Petersen
> >But aren't they also insisting that you upload these materials to their
> >BBS where you forfeit ownership?
> Actually, I don't think that's what the disclaimer there says, but remember:
> Jeff wasn't talking about the FTP site disclaimer. He was talking about
> the policy statement that was sent to the Jove (and other) locations.
> If I remember correctly (and I'm paraphrasing here), Jeff said that the policy
> statement made it clear that TSR was trying to seize control of other people's
> copyrights. I couldn't see what he was talking about, and neither could a
> few other people.
At ftp.mpgn.com you are greeted by this message:
250-The items in this directory incorporate or are based on
250-or derived from copyrighted material of TSR, Inc. and
250-may contain trademarks of TSR. The items are made available
250-by MPG-Net under license from TSR, but are not authorized
250-or endorsed by TSR. The items are for personal use only and
250-may not be published or distributed except through MPG-Net
250-or TSR.
If someone writes something that qualifies under this description
this person does certainly not own the copyright of the material.
The last sentence clearly means that TSR now controls the
distribution of the materials in question.
Would you dispute then, that TSR has tried taking away the copyrights
to the material that was at the greyhawk (later mpgn) site?
Thomas
--
//If the worship of Great Cthulhu was criminal
only criminals would worship Great Cthulhu.//
Check my guide to Internet resources on Role-Playing Games at
http://fys-hp-1.risoe.dk/petersen/rpg/
--
Slacker01
Well, no -- copyright law regarding computer code is essentially an animal
all its own, and given that I'm a point-and-click baby I don't understand the
first thing about code, let alone how the complicated and technical copyright
rules apply to it.
However, I will note, Jeff, that your personality continues to be endearing,
regardless of what subject you're making presumptions about.
Best,
---Slacker01
Thomas Petersen
> >Well, I for one dispute the notion that net.books which use xD&D game
> >mechanics are "derivative" in any way meaningful to an intellectual
> >property infringement suit.
> The test for derivative infringement here is whether: a reasonable gamer
> would identify the second work as having been adapted from the first work.
> If the answer is yes, then the derivation is what you describe as "meaningful,"
> to an intellectual property suit.
So given that the computer that sits on my desktop is clearly an
adaptation of an IBM AT, the manufacturer infringes IBM's copyrights?
Someone should tell IBM. They could make a lot of money if they
realized that.
More seriously: Let's take a module written by a Net denizen. We
suppose that he or she has identified all trademarks correctly
and stated that the module was not in any way written by TSR.
To be on the safe side this gamer didn't use any TSR game-world,
and for good measure didn't use any classes or monsters invented
by TSR. The rules for taking damage and rolling up characters are
basically still the same as found in TSR rulebooks, but they are
of course not explicitly described since readers of the module
presumably already own such rulebooks.
This module is not an adaptation of a TSR module. It is not an
adaptation of the Dungeon Master's (tm) Handbook, or any other
handbook. It is not an adatation of any Monster Compendium. It
simply uses the same terminology that is present in the books
published by TSR, and TSR *still* claims it infringes their
copyrights, and that it isn't distributable without their explicit
consent. Such a claim is not just ridiculous - it's an insult to
our intelligence. The module described is no more derivative
of TSR copyrighted materials than this message is a derived
from the vi editor.
Slacker01
>you can only trademark [I think you mean copyright. --Slacker] the specific
>rules, board, etc. that you print....This is very important, because a
>process is not copyrightable.
Well, I'd entirely agree with you, but I don't much see your point: TSR isn't
claiming copyright in the process of playing fantasy role-playing games.
How does this relate to our discussion here?
Best,
---Slacker01
Thomas Petersen
> >Well, I'm confident that it can be adequately demonstrated that terms such as
> >Armor Class (etc.) are integral elements of the game mechanics. So much so
> >that they, in effect, _are_ the game mechanics.
> And remember: it's fairly indisputed that TSR's armor class /table/ would be
> within its copyright; but by your argument, "armor class" would be a game
> mechanic and therefore not subject to copyright.
Noone demands the right to post tables from TSR rulebooks. I know
of an instance where someone posted such a table and he was
instantly shouted down, and upon realizing what he'd done he
said he wouldn't do it again. What is at stake is the right freely
to describe to other people how these tables might be put to
creative use. TSR claims you need their permission to do so
and I think they are wrong.
Slacker01
>a description.
Well, Jon, it's not MY test -- it's the court's test. (In fact, I think even
Jeff Kessleman was able to find it in his copyright primer.) If you don't
like it, I suppose you can take it up with your local federal circuit, but in
the meantime, it's what the law says.
Best,
---Slacker01
Larry Smith
Paul R. Dupuis <pa...@hermes.bc.edu> wrote:
>I really think you're making a mistake ignoring Slacker. (Now, before
>your blood pressure goes up any more, just take a deep breath and
>let me continue.) For a week or so now, it's been obvious that no
>matter what Slacker says, or how he says it, you manage to interpret
>it as a personal attack. (To back up this statement, I point to the
>"cheap shot" phrase in your response -- an indication that you think
>Slacker's request for clarification was a cheap shot at either you
>or your argument.)
>
It _is_ a cheap shot, Paul. That's all Slacker has brought to the
whole discussion. He obfuscates, requests clarifications, pounces
on ancilliary points and diverts the discussion from the main point.
In short, he will be a splendid lawyer, but he has no use in an
Internet discussion. Killfile him.
--
Larry Smith --- My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/lar...@io.com.
pentagon.io.com is Illuminati OnLine, SJ Games, _not_ "the" Pentagon, please.
Necessity is the excuse for every infringement of human freedom. It is the
argument of the tyrant and the creed of the slave. -- William Pitt, 1763
Slacker01
> >BBS where you forfeit ownership?
>At ftp.mpgn.com you are greeted by this message:
>250-The items in this directory incorporate or are based on
>250-or derived from copyrighted material of TSR, Inc. and
>250-may contain trademarks of TSR. The items are made available
>250-by MPG-Net under license from TSR, but are not authorized
>250-or endorsed by TSR. The items are for personal use only and
>250-may not be published or distributed except through MPG-Net
>250-or TSR.
>If someone writes something that qualifies under this description
>this person does certainly not own the copyright of the material.
>The last sentence clearly means that TSR now controls the
>distribution of the materials in question.
>Would you dispute then, that TSR has tried taking away the copyrights
>to the material that was at the greyhawk (later mpgn) site?
I think you're misunderstanding the scope of your copyright, Tom. You own
your copyright whether or not you acknoweledge that it's been derived from
someone else's work; you don't lose that simply by signing a disclaimer.
The last sentence, for instance, gives TSR a license to distribute your
materials, but it wouldn't need that permission from you unless you already
owned the copyright.
What this disclaimer DOES do is have you acknowledge that you've created a
derivative work; that means you can't distribute it without TSR's permission,
as much as TSR cannot distribute it without yours. (But, as I've noted, you've
just given them permission by signing the disclaimer.)
This is significantly different from "forfeiting" your copyright, as the
original message author had claimed, or that TSR is "taking away the copyrights"
, or that the author "does certainly not own the copyright of the material."
If that were indeed the case, then TSR could simply package up your module,
sell it as a TSR product in stores, and make a profit without giving you a
penny. Obviously, that's not what the disclaimer gives it permission to do.
BTW, I'd recommend against anyone uploading any work under the terms of that
disclaimer, as I mentioned in a previous message. I'll explain it again if you
missed it the first time round.
And, again, I'll note that the disclaimer isn't what Jeff had been talking
about at all; he announced that the message sent to the Jove site was the
clear indication that TSR was trying to steal everyone's copyright; and, like
several other people, I couldn't see at all what he was talking about.
Do you?
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
>of an IBM AT, the manufacturer infringes IBM's copyright?
Well, IBM doesn't hold a copyright in "the computer that sits on your
desktop." It holds a copyright in (I think) the circuit board design, the
object code design, and so on. Isn't this the Apple/Franklin case? I don't
remember offhand.
Anyway, it's just an ancillary issue, not really part of the TSR copyright
problem.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
I dunno about that, Tom; the original message writer's argument was that since
armor class was a "game mechanic," you couldn't copyright any aspect of its
expression. That sounds pretty much like demanding the right to post tables
from TSR rulebooks.
Best,
---Slacker01
S. Keith Graham
>>[Quote fixed]
>>The court opinion of games in the past is that a game is a process. ...
>>you can only copyright the specific
>>rules, board, etc. that you print....This is very important, because a
>>process is not copyrightable.
>Well, I'd entirely agree with you, but I don't much see your point: TSR isn't
>claiming copyright in the process of playing fantasy role-playing games.
>How does this relate to our discussion here?
They are claiming the copyright to playing *their* fantasy role-playing game.
But the process of playing _their_ game is not subject to a copyright
(with the possible exception of their fictional elements).
You could write a new set of rules that, given the same player decisions,
would result in identical dice being rolled, and result in the same
actions occuring for a given die result.
The process of playing AD&D is not in any way protected by copyright.
As such, the 'net could, if it so choose, create a new, 100% compatible
system that duplicated the play of AD&D, as long as they didn't use any
text from TSR's manuals.
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu
Slacker01
Paul R. Dupuis <pa...@hermes.bc.edu> wrote:
>>I really think you're making a mistake ignoring Slacker. (Now, before
>>your blood pressure goes up any more, just take a deep breath and
>>let me continue.) For a week or so now, it's been obvious that no
>>matter what Slacker says, or how he says it, you manage to interpret
>>it as a personal attack. (To back up this statement, I point to the
>>"cheap shot" phrase in your response -- an indication that you think
>>Slacker's request for clarification was a cheap shot at either you
>>or your argument.)
>
>It _is_ a cheap shot, Paul. That's all Slacker has brought to the
>whole discussion. He obfuscates, requests clarifications, pounces
>on ancilliary points and diverts the discussion from the main point.
>In short, he will be a splendid lawyer, but he has no use in an
>Internet discussion. Killfile him.
>
>--
>Larry Smith --- My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/lar...@io.com.
And again, here's Larry's idea of contributing to the
discussion instead of fanning the flames of conflict.
Oh, wait -- this is from the guy who said he was entitled to
kick up flamewars now, because he (supposedly) contributed to
the discussion several months ago.
Oh well. At least he said I'd make a good lawyer; maybe Jeff
Kessleman will listen to him.
Best,
---Slacker01
Slacker01
No, Keith, I think you're entirely mistaken on that; I don't think TSR has
claimed that at all.
Is there some message from Rob Repp or policy statement that you're thinking
of?
Best,
---Slacker01
Thomas Petersen
>
The last sentence also takes away the right of the author
of a document to distribute or publish due to the reputedly derived
nature of the document. According to the original document sent
to site admins, any document that mentions TSR trademarks (not
just HIT DICE and ARMOR CLASS) is a violation against TSR's
intellectual property whether or not the trademark is acknowledged
not, and can only be distributed by the TSR licensing terms.
Maybe this is strictly speaking not attempting to take away people's
copyright, but it certainly is an attempt at taking away the
distribution rights they have.
> This is significantly different from "forfeiting" your copyright, as the
> original message author had claimed, or that TSR is "taking away the copyrights"
> , or that the author "does certainly not own the copyright of the material."
> If that were indeed the case, then TSR could simply package up your module,
> sell it as a TSR product in stores, and make a profit without giving you a
> penny. Obviously, that's not what the disclaimer gives it permission to do.
The contract between the author and TSR doesn't state that they can
publish it without the permission of the author, so of course they can't.
But this doesn't mean that the author owns the document in any meaningful
sense of the word anymore. And this applies whether or not the
document was derivative or not in the first place.
Examples from the directories include a list of names (names.list.Z,
apparently culled from some ASCII dictionary - no mention of anything
invented by TSR,) the Navero series by Daniel Parsons (a write-up of
an AD&D campaign - not set in any TSR world or based on their modules
AFAIK,) lists of various items and to top it off: The rec.games.frp.*
FAQs written by Coyt Watters. Not too long ago fonts for Tolkien's
alphabets were in the AD&D directories too. So forgive me if I think
that TSR overstates what exactly is derivative or not.
> BTW, I'd recommend against anyone uploading any work under the terms of that
> disclaimer, as I mentioned in a previous message. I'll explain it again if you
> missed it the first time round.
Let's just agree that the wording of the disclaimer is somewhat controversial.
Thomas Petersen
> >So, given that the computer that sits on my desktop is clearly an adaptation
> >of an IBM AT, the manufacturer infringes IBM's copyright?
> Well, IBM doesn't hold a copyright in "the computer that sits on your
> desktop." It holds a copyright in (I think) the circuit board design, the
> object code design, and so on. Isn't this the Apple/Franklin case? I don't
> remember offhand.
So we agree that creating an adaptation doesn't automatically imply an
infringement of copyright?
BTW: Weren't TSR supposed to come out with an official restatement of
their case in the new year?
Larry Smith
Slacker01 <72713...@CompuServe.COM> wrote:
>And again, here's Larry's idea of contributing to the
>discussion instead of fanning the flames of conflict.
>
>Oh, wait -- this is from the guy who said he was entitled to
>kick up flamewars now, because he (supposedly) contributed to
>the discussion several months ago.
Slacker, you detestable slimeball-in-training, you have showed
over and over again you _deserve_ nothing but flaming, and
flaming is all you are going to get. I've read this group
for _years_, dealt with copyright law and lawyers for _years_,
and all I can see is Jeff and his legal experience matches up
precisely with all the professionals I've ever heard from and
_you_, you over-educated legal twit, match up with none what-
soever. And, quite aside from the poor quality of your legal
advice, you are a total boor, and obnoxious far beyond the
normal call for your intended profession.
"Supposedly". I like that. Some jerk from CompuBucks slithers
his way onto the Internet and thinks it never existed before He
graced it with His presence! Do you even _know_ who the reg-
ulars _are_ on these newsgroups? I doubt it. Just more fog
and blather.
>Oh well. At least he said I'd make a good lawyer; maybe Jeff
>Kessleman will listen to him.
Pity that "good" does not mean "ethical" in your profession.
I've no doubt you'll be good. It's obvious that chasing all
those ambulances will keep you in good condition to a ripe
old age.
Must be fun to swim anywhere you want without worrying about
sharks, huh, Slacker?
--
Larry Smith --- My opinions only. lar...@zk3.dec.com/lar...@io.com.
S. Keith Graham
>>They are claiming the copyright to playing *their* fantasy role-playing game.
>I ...think TSR has
>claimed that...
Well, you've managed to trim out of context, and get quote and response
to quote (and response to quote) into nonsense.. (I returned the favor
above, but will go ahead and present the full arguement again.)
TSR claims a copyright on the "game system"; further, they claim that
works that use "game mechanics" from that system are a violation of
their copyright if distributed.
However, straight from Nimmer: (2.18[H].3-Copyrightability of Games)
"It is said that games are not copyrightable but this general proposition
is subject to qualification. It is true that no copyright may be obtained
in the system or manner of playing a game... However, some limited copyright
protection is nevertheless available in connection with games. ..labels
for games, as well as pattern or design of game boards and playing cards as
pictoral or graphical works. Certain game boards may also be copyrightable
as 'maps'. Moreover, the wording of instructions for the playing of the
game is itself copyrightable so as to prevent a literal or closely
paraphrased copying... such copyright would not, however, permit a
monopoly on the method of play itself, as distinguished from the form
of instructions for such play. It has been held that mechanical and
structural similarity between the plantiff's and defendant's games
will not constitute infringement absent a similiarity of artwork."
(The last aparently referring primarily to physical games, such
as toys. -- KG)
(Tons of footnotes deleted, see Nimmer for the basis of these
statements.)
So the copyright law considers a "game" to be some creation independant
of any specific set of rules. (After all, there is only one "game" of
chess, but dozens of sets of rules that explain the exact same game.)
Games exist in people's minds, and are an idea/system. Rules are
just a single method of recording those ideas; but the idea gains no
protection by writing it down (beyond preventing someone from copying
the written rules exactly). (Perhaps a game could be patented, but
this isn't the case with AD&D.)
Other than the artwork, and the literal rules, there is no copyright
given to "games", per se. (And this whole discussion is ignoring the
issue of trademarks.) Copyright does not give them a monopoly on
their "extensive line of rules, [and] game mechanics" (from their
Policy Statement) beyond preventing literal copying, based on my
reading from Nimmer. (The products, identities, names, logos,
and standards of quality claimed in the same sentance probably have
some protection through copyright or trademark, but that's another
story.)
This is all prior to the creation of such elaborate games as AD&D,
so perhaps a judge will see fit to alter the existing law regarding
"games". But based on current law, I would say that a group of people
could write up some new rules for playing the FRP that TSR markets as
AD&D. The exact same gaming engine. The exact same dice rolled in
the exact same situation with the exact same "goal" number.
As such, I think this casts some doubts as to TSR's claim that use
of their *system* is a violation of their copyright, as their
*system of rules* has no protection beyond preventing literal
copying.
Keith Graham
vap...@cad.gatech.edu