Obvious to Us: WHite Wolf Sues about "Underworld"
Zath the Spider God of Zamora
WHITE WOLF, INC. and author NANCY A. COLLINS sue SONY PICTURES, SCREEN GEMS and
LAKESHORE ENTERTAINMENT for "Underworld" copyright infringement
Atlanta, GA, 5 September 2003—White Wolf, Inc. and Nancy A. Collins yesterday
filed suit in US District court in Atlanta, Georgia against defendants Sony
Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment, alleging 17 counts of
copyright infringement for the film Underworld, set for release on September 19.
White Wolf alleges that Underworld characters, theme and setting are based on
White Wolf’s award winning games Vampire: The Masquerade® and Werewolf: The
Apocalypse™, both set in White Wolf’s fictional World of Darkness®. Further,
Collins alleges that Underworld’s script is based on her 1994 story Love of
Monsters, published by White Wolf and also set in the World of Darkness.
Plaintiffs claim over 60 points of unique similarity between Underworld and
their work. "Ours is a huge fictional world, supported by over 200 volumes of
fictional material," asserts Mike Tinney, White Wolf’s President. "It’s
infuriating to see Underworld’s script riddled with our property." Plaintiffs
also claim that Underworld’s entire plot is based on Collins’ short story Love
of Monsters. "Apparently they are marketing this as a remake of Romeo and
Juliet," comments Collins. "What I think they really mean is that it’s an
on-screen adaptation of my story."
White Wolf and Collins are seeking immediate injunctive relief and damages. "The
volume of confusion in our marketplace is amazing," observes Tinney, "our fans
think they’re going to be seeing our film. Of course, if the movie gets
released, in a way they will be."
Please direct press inquiries to:
for White Wolf: R. Schaeffer, 404-292-1819 x200
for Collins: Pamela Koslyn, 310-271-1833; or Nancy A. Collins, 678-637-2407
Marc
> Atlanta, GA, 5 September 2003—White Wolf, Inc. and Nancy A. Collins yesterday
> filed suit in US District court in Atlanta, Georgia against defendants Sony
> Pictures, Screen Gems and Lakeshore Entertainment, alleging 17 counts of
> copyright infringement for the film Underworld, set for release on September 19.
An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
--
Marc -- No comment
Zath, the Spider God of Zamora
Who's that?
jh
--
..
Beyond Conan! Roleplaying in Hyboria and other Barbaric Worlds:
www.yahoogroups.com/group/d20conan
..
BlakGard
>> An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
>
> Who's that?
I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
along those lines made by White Wolf.
Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
-=[ The BlakGard ]=-
"Somewhere there's danger;
somewhere there's injustice,
and somewhere else the tea is getting cold!"
Stephenls
<snip>
Wow, this is getting discussed /everywhere/.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Go then. There are other worlds than these."
Terry Austin
news:20030907021057...@mb-m21.aol.com:
> Zath, the Spider God of Zamora wrote:
>>> An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
>>
>> Who's that?
>
> I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
> features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
> along those lines made by White Wolf.
>
> Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
>
Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our gentials
to anything by White Wolf.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor!
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
Terry Austin
tau...@hyperbooks.com
Hong Ooi
wrote:
>blak...@aol.comix.net (BlakGard) wrote in
>news:20030907021057...@mb-m21.aol.com:
>
>> Zath, the Spider God of Zamora wrote:
>>>> An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
>>>
>>> Who's that?
>>
>> I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
>> features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
>> along those lines made by White Wolf.
>>
>> Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
>>
>Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our gentials
>to anything by White Wolf.
I dunno, what's wrong with applying something by White Wolf to our
genitals?
</rimshot>
--
Hong Ooi | "Does *anyone* at WOTC bother to
ho...@zipworld.com.au | _think_ when making housecat stats?"
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | -- MSB
Sydney, Australia |
Christopher Adams
> Wow, this is getting discussed /everywhere/.
I've done my part, spreading it to alt.horror.
--
Christopher Adams - SUTEKH Functions Officer 2003
When I awakened, I was not as I had been.
"A portfolio of erotic 'Buffy' fan-fiction does not a writer make."
- Neil, www.goats.com
Stephenls
> I've done my part, spreading it to alt.horror.
Oh, crap. Now I have to subscribe to alt.horror.
Stephenls
> Oh, crap. Now I have to subscribe to alt.horror.
And now I have to unsubscribe.
Dear God, please tell me I don't sound like those people when I'm
talking about RPGs. CGI centipede my ass.
Christopher Adams
> Stephenls wrote:
>> Oh, crap. Now I have to subscribe to alt.horror.
>
> And now I have to unsubscribe.
>
> Dear God, please tell me I don't sound like those people when I'm
> talking about RPGs. CGI centipede my ass.
Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm going to fly to Melbourne and punch that guy in the
head.
Ignore ^TooL^. Actually, alt.horror has a very, very *interesting* newsgroup
culture, full of stupid in-jokes and abusiveness, but (apart from the
abusiveness, which is generally good-natured) most of the banter is of the same
comfortable type as that which we used to enjoy between you and Richard in
alt.games.whitewolf.
It just seems scary to outsiders, I guess. SU FO ENO!
Terry Austin
news:gakllvo8ao5ab65gs...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 06:21:12 -0000, Terry Austin
> <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote:
>
>>blak...@aol.comix.net (BlakGard) wrote in
>>news:20030907021057...@mb-m21.aol.com:
>>
>>> Zath, the Spider God of Zamora wrote:
>>>>> An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
>>>>
>>>> Who's that?
>>>
>>> I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
>>> features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
>>> along those lines made by White Wolf.
>>>
>>> Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
>>>
>>Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our
>>gentials to anything by White Wolf.
>
> I dunno, what's wrong with applying something by White Wolf to our
> genitals?
Everything.
>
> </rimshot>
>
In more ways than one, you perv.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Terry Austin
news:20030907040351...@mb-m21.aol.com:
>>>>> An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
>>>>
>>>> Who's that?
>>>
>>> I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
>>> features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
>>> along those lines made by White Wolf.
>>>
>>> Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
>>
>> Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our
>> gentials to anything by White Wolf.
>
> Yeah, but not me. I kind of like the story behind the WW games. I just
> don't like the lack of cohesion.
>
Sounds like you've already had the cheese grater applied, and have nothing
left to live for.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
NoComment
So, "vampires fighting werewolves" is exclusively the property of White
Wolf?
ROTFLMFAO!!! Someone needs to fly down and punch everyone at WW who is
involved in the "lawsuit". REALLY HARD!
Or, maybe someone can clue in the folks down at WW that *ideas are NOT
copyrightable*, no matter how much the RPG industry wants them to be.
Marc
> > An idea that Nightlife had in print first.
>
>
> Who's that?
>
> jh
Nightlife, by Stellar Games. Basically a better version of W.W.'s world of
darkness.
Marc
> I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
> features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
> along those lines made by White Wolf.
Not quite a vampire/werewolf gangwar, more like you had gangs composed of
many different supernatural creatures, vampires, werevolves, demons,
zombies, etc. Players could create a character of any of those races. Two
factions existed in the game, well, more but two main ones. One hate
humanity and basically was working to destroy it. The other tolerated
humanity even allowing humans in their circles.
> Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
Same here. I still have it, along with Nightlife Magic.
Rupert Boleyn
If they are I want my cut of WW take from their Dark Ages stuff. We
played a game very like some aspects of this using RuneQuest back in
the mid 80s.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rbo...@paradise.net.nz>
"A pessimist is simply an optimist with a sense of history."
Dirk Collins
> Or, maybe someone can clue in the folks down at WW that *ideas are NOT
> copyrightable*, no matter how much the RPG industry wants them to be.
That should be:
"Other people's ideas that are already copyrighted are not
copyrightable by the RPG Industry."
Right?
Dirk
BlakGard
>> I think he means the Stellar Games' RPG "Nightlife." Among its
>> features was a vampire/werewolf gangwar, and it predated anything
>> along those lines made by White Wolf.
>
> Not quite a vampire/werewolf gangwar, more like you had gangs
> composed of many different supernatural creatures, vampires,
> werevolves, demons, zombies, etc.
Indeed. I didn't mean to imply that vamp/wolf was the only part. It had
Herd (human) gangs, as well.
Marc
No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation of it.
Marc
> Indeed. I didn't mean to imply that vamp/wolf was the only part. It had
> Herd (human) gangs, as well.
True. Though you could effectively play a human, especially once you add
Nightlife Magic in the mix. Now if only I could come up with decent plot
lines and get a group together. I thought about combining elements of
Unknown Armies with Nightlife, especially the success mechanics. Got to
love a mechanic that includes the result, "Bend Over A Kiss Your Ass
Goodbye." Even if they took it out of the second edition.
Geoffrey Brent
> No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation of it.
You can't copyright *anything*.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html (covers US law;
AFAIK, international copyright law on the following is pretty much the
same, but IANAL). Also, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#cr
"Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and
fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with
the aid of a machine or device."
Anything eligible for copyright protection *automatically* receives such
protection the moment it becomes tangible. Registering a copyright is a
good way to get your ownership on the record, and also entitles you to
more damages if that copyright's violated, but registration doesn't
create copyright.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> Or, maybe someone can clue in the folks down at WW that *ideas are NOT
>> copyrightable*, no matter how much the RPG industry wants them to be.
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That should be:
>
> "Other people's ideas that are already copyrighted are not
> copyrightable by the RPG Industry."
>
> Right?
Wrong. Ideas are not subject to copyright, period. That's what patents
are for.
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Geoffrey Brent
>>"Other people's ideas that are already copyrighted are not
>>copyrightable by the RPG Industry."
>>
>>Right?
>
>
> Wrong. Ideas are not subject to copyright, period. That's what patents
> are for.
Trademarks, too.
Note that getting either of these things is vastly more expensive and
annoying than getting copyright. I've spent most of the last six months
thrashing out patents for work arising from my PhD project, and that's
_with_ the aid of an IP lawyer. *grumble*
At least I'm not footing the bill.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> LOL!
>
> So, "vampires fighting werewolves" is exclusively the property of White
> Wolf?
Someone better tell Laurel K Hamilton then.....
> ROTFLMFAO!!! Someone needs to fly down and punch everyone at WW who is
> involved in the "lawsuit". REALLY HARD!
>
> Or, maybe someone can clue in the folks down at WW that *ideas are NOT
> copyrightable*, no matter how much the RPG industry wants them to be.
Of course not, but the way many civil law systems are these days it is
relatively easy to try and make a claim and tie it all up in money
draining exercise. Effectively rendering the protection you want. Its not
going to stop happening without serious penalties for bringing silly
lawsuits and clamping down and thats unlikely to happen since the
difference between losing a case and not having one in the first place is
a continuum of grey not a black and white one and enforcing a rule more
than is written today or rather describing when to is not really going to
be possible without crapping further on people who may have a case in the
grey areas who subsequently lose
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Tim Fitzmaurice
No its ideas are not copyrightable - if you have a new,original AND
non-obvious/trivial idea and you wish to protect it you have to use other
forms of IP protection eg patents asssuming that what you have is
patentable. Copyright protects one thing - text that you use to describe
something and to a lesser extent the derivative works eg translations,
adaptations etc of that work, not the something itself. Use of trademarks
effectively also may confer some measure of protection but again there are
limitations on exactly what it is you are protecting and thus how if at
all you can get around.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Marc wrote:
>
>> No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation of it.
>
>You can't copyright *anything*.
Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Bradd W. Szonye
> Of course not, but the way many civil law systems are these days it is
> relatively easy to try and make a claim and tie it all up in money
> draining exercise. Effectively rendering the protection you want.
That would make more sense if it weren't White Wolf (a company with a
minority market share in a niche industry) taking on Sony (an eight
million pound gorilla). I suspect, in no particular order:
1. There's really something to the claim.
2. The plaintiffs have delusions that there's really something to it.
3. The plaintiffs have delusions that they're big enough to tie up Sony
in court by throwing money at them.
Tim Fitzmaurice
> Tim Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Of course not, but the way many civil law systems are these days it is
> > relatively easy to try and make a claim and tie it all up in money
> > draining exercise. Effectively rendering the protection you want.
>
> That would make more sense if it weren't White Wolf (a company with a
> minority market share in a niche industry) taking on Sony (an eight
> million pound gorilla). I suspect, in no particular order:
The big v small relative size isnt really a huge issue once you get big
enough to mount anything - if it becomes cheaper to settle
than defend you can still tie up the system and gain the protection you
want. WW have a healthy enough cash flow and likely insurance of the
requisite type to do this. ANd insurance floating around makes it even
more likely.
> 1. There's really something to the claim.
> 2. The plaintiffs have delusions that there's really something to it.
> 3. The plaintiffs have delusions that they're big enough to tie up Sony
> in court by throwing money at them.
Hmm that kinda covers every option doesnt it....?
I could also go for misreporting I guess - ie its not copyright but some
other IP misreported.
Dirk Collins
>
> No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation of it.
Yes, that would be the portion which is already copyrighted by a
third party. That could include an all-inclusive category, a
theme, a single subject, or a series of subjects. Written well
enough, an entire idea could very well be copyrighted in such a
way as to prevent anyone else from using it other than the
original author. That is the reason copyright exists in the first
place, to protect the author from thieves.
Variations on specific implementations are known as derivative
works, and derivative works are expressly prohibited unless
approved in a written agreement by the original author/copyright
holder.
With Regards,
Dirk
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:kP_6b.9112$_26....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
> Marc wrote:
>
>>
>> No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation
>> of it.
>
> Yes, that would be the portion which is already copyrighted by a
> third party.
No, stupid. An idea CANNOT BE COPYRIGHTED AT ALL! Go re-read the law.
> theme, a single subject, or a series of subjects. Written well
> enough, an entire idea could very well be copyrighted in such a
> way as to prevent anyone else from using it other than the
Bullshit. Cite the specific portion of law that states that IDEAS can be
copyrighted.
> original author. That is the reason copyright exists in the first
> place, to protect the author from thieves.
Double bullshit. The reason it exists in the first place is to ensure
that works exist to pass into the public domain. In return for this,
authors are given a LIMITED TIME exclusive privilige to make copies.
Dirk Collins
> Wrong. Ideas are not subject to copyright, period. That's what patents
> are for.
Bzztt.
Copyright protects forms of artistic expression including
writings, paintings, music, music compositions, photos, graphics,
videos, film, architecture, computer programs, sculptures, plays,
etc., basically any original fixed works whether published, or
unpublished, and prevents unauthorized; duplication, sale,
distribution, display, or prohibits adaptation.
Patents protect many inventions including machines, compositions,
plants, processes, and articles of manufacture, however
specifically does not protect any abstract ideas.
Trade Secrets protect business information that is not generally
known or readily discernable including formula, methods, devices,
compilations of facts, unpublished patents, or any confidential
information that gives a business an advantage, and prevents
aquisition or disclosure.
Trade Marks protect unique words, symbols, logos, designs,
slogans, trade dress, or product configuration and prevents
unauthorized; duplication, sale, distribution, display, as well
as prohibiting adaptation of similar trademarks intended to
confuse consumers in regards to the original trademark.
With Regards,
Dirk
Dirk Collins
> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
Ask your attorney if you don't believe me.
Whether your idea is original or not. That is another matter
entirely, which many attorneys are happy to dispute.
With Regards,
Dirk
Malachias Invictus
"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93EEED8EB7605ta...@216.168.3.50...
> blak...@aol.comix.net (BlakGard) wrote:
> > Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
> Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our gentials
> to anything by White Wolf.
Terry, you kinky *bitch*!
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Dirk Collins
> The reason it exists in the first place is to ensure
> that works exist to pass into the public domain. In return for this,
> authors are given a LIMITED TIME exclusive privilige to make copies.
Yes, that would be life of the author plus 70 years. There is
nothing currently in copyright law that prohibits the
heirs/assigns of the original copyright from re-publishing the
same works with a new copyright at;
"life of the original author + 69 years"
to effectively extend that copyright protection for another
timespan equal to:
"Lifespan of the current copyright holder plus another 70 years"
Conceivably, one could hold a copyright indefinitely this way. (In
fact, some corporations are now doing just this... maintaining
ownership of specific ideas at the expense of the general public
using the very laws originally intended to provide the public with
a means of access to the ideas or works in the first place.)
Do I need to cite some specific examples of this for you?
With Regards,
Dirk
Marc
> Mere moments before death, Geoffrey Brent hastily scrawled:
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>> No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation of it.
>>
>>You can't copyright *anything*.
>
> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
>
>
>
>
> Ed Chauvin IV
Point to Ed.
Marc
> Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
>> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
>> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
>
> Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
> copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
> unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
> Ask your attorney if you don't believe me.
Nope. You have a distorted idea of what "duplication" means in this
context.
Marc
I'd change that last to, "The reason it exists in the first place; to give
authors a limited time exclusive privilege to CONTROL what happens to the
work."
Stephenls
> That would make more sense if it weren't White Wolf (a company with a
> minority market share in a niche industry) taking on Sony (an eight
> million pound gorilla). I suspect, in no particular order:
> 1. There's really something to the claim.
For the people who don't know what's going on with this thing but
actually want to know more, it looks like this might be the case. It's
not so much White Wolf suing Sony for ripping off the WoD so much as
White Wolf suing Sony in Nancy Collins' name for adapting a specific
story ("Love of Monsters," published in an early Vampire short story
anthology) to screenplay format and then filming it without paying for
the privilege.
In more detail, the claim looks something like:
"You ripped off this short story, then reversed the genders of the
protagonists so you could make the female one a rip-off of our most
popular female protagonist sig character (Lucita). Then you called
being turned into a vampire 'the Embrace' and vampire-werewolf hybrids
'Abominations,' both of which are pieces of terminology we use in our
games and nobody ever used in the past to refer to the things we use
them for. C'mon, guys, game's over. Give us credit."
The claim is still a bit dodgy, in that you can't copyright
"strong-willed and combat-capable female protagonist," and the
screenplay might be "adapted" enough to count as original, but on the
whole, the number of meaningful similarities between the two properties
is enough for Sony to look a bit suspicious.
Ten to one, this'll be settled out-of-court for an undisclosed amount,
and the movie'll play in theatres without so much as a delay.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Go then. There are other worlds than these."
Sir Bob
news:ba%6b.9134$_26....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Bradd W. Szonye wrote:
>
> > Wrong. Ideas are not subject to copyright, period. That's what patents
> > are for.
>
> Bzztt.
>
> Copyright protects forms of artistic expression including
> writings, paintings, music, music compositions, photos, graphics,
> videos, film, architecture, computer programs, sculptures, plays,
> etc., basically any original fixed works whether published, or
> unpublished, and prevents unauthorized; duplication, sale,
> distribution, display, or prohibits adaptation.
>
> Patents protect many inventions including machines, compositions,
> plants, processes, and articles of manufacture, however
> specifically does not protect any abstract ideas.
<snip>
Are you aware that there is presently a company that owns the patent on the
*idea* of selling things over the Internet? Sure, it's entirely possible
that some techno-illiterate at the American patent office had no idea what
they were issuing a patent on, and enforcement may be problematic, but
nonetheless... ;)
(There's also a company that owns what appears to be a patent on the idea of
static menus on websites - that is, menus that remain fixed across multiple
pages - and a man who claims to have patented the idea of clickable links.
Attempts to have these patents enforced are ongoing.)
- Sir Bob.
Dirk Collins
> Are you aware that there is presently a company that owns the patent on the
> *idea* of selling things over the Internet? Sure, it's entirely possible
> that some techno-illiterate at the American patent office had no idea what
> they were issuing a patent on, and enforcement may be problematic, but
> nonetheless... ;)
>
> (There's also a company that owns what appears to be a patent on the idea of
> static menus on websites - that is, menus that remain fixed across multiple
> pages - and a man who claims to have patented the idea of clickable links.
> Attempts to have these patents enforced are ongoing.)
>
> - Sir Bob.
On the first count, yes, I was aware of that. On the menus, this
is something new, and I would be interested in having a link to
any litigation news for that.
With Regards,
Dirk
Stephenls
> On the first count, yes, I was aware of that. On the menus, this is
> something new, and I would be interested in having a link to any
> litigation news for that.
Unfortunately, providing you with a link would be copyright infringement
if your reader is of the type that automatically makes them hyperlinks.
And we can't have that!
Dirk Collins
> Dirk Collins wrote:
>
>> On the first count, yes, I was aware of that. On the menus, this is
>> something new, and I would be interested in having a link to any
>> litigation news for that.
>
>
> Unfortunately, providing you with a link would be copyright infringement
> if your reader is of the type that automatically makes them hyperlinks.
> And we can't have that!
Hmmm... ? Yes, of course. Fortunately, I'm subscribed to several
news services that will provide details of any relevant decisions
regarding any new patents on internet communications technology,
or on any new IP laws and practices established, or forthcoming.
With Regards,
Dirk
http://www.eff.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Your first stop in defending freedom in the Digital World.
Doug Lampert
According to the original post they are claiming over 60 points of
Unique similarity, and that a specific story is being copied.
If true they are suing over copyright infringment, not some other
form of IP, and they are correct to do so.
I cannot write a book about a character who just happens to be named
Harrold Botter, who attends a school that just happens to be named
Hogworts, and claim that it is not copyright infringement because I
did not use the EXACT same words as J.K. Rowling to describe these
things (I can try to claim it is a parody, but that is a different
matter). I any case for all any of us know Sony may well have used
the exact same words.
A specific story being sited indicates that this is NOT simply setting
matters, as implied by the claims that Nightlife was first, but instead
that it is a matter of the particular plotline.
If they have supporting details, like proper names and organization
names that are unique to their setting, and they are claiming 60 such
according to the original post, then they will win handsdown, and Sony
would be well advised to settle prior to this getting in front of a
judge.
DougL
Sir Bob
news:3F5C9C3...@shaw.ca...
> Dirk Collins wrote:
>
> > On the first count, yes, I was aware of that. On the menus, this is
> > something new, and I would be interested in having a link to any
> > litigation news for that.
>
> Unfortunately, providing you with a link would be copyright infringement
> if your reader is of the type that automatically makes them hyperlinks.
> And we can't have that!
*Patent* infringement. =P
- Sir Bob.
Stephenls
> According to the original post they are claiming over 60 points of
> Unique similarity, and that a specific story is being copied.
For anyone who's interested, the legal document is here:
http://homepages.cquest.utoronto.ca/~cks/whitewolf.complaint.pdf
There are a lot of really minor ones, like "Werewolves in the WoD are
harmed by silver. Werewolves in Underworld are harmed by silver," and
few important major ones. It helps to remember, when reading it, that
because this is a legal document, White Wolf has to mention /every/
parallel, no matter how small, even if some of them look stupid or obvious.
Magicalist
"Bradd W. Szonye" <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbloflj.v...@szonye.com...
> Tim Fitzmaurice <tj...@cus.cam.ac.uk> wrote:
> That would make more sense if it weren't White Wolf (a company with a
> minority market share in a niche industry) taking on Sony (an eight
> million pound gorilla). I suspect, in no particular order:
> 1. There's really something to the claim.
> 2. The plaintiffs have delusions that there's really something to it.
> 3. The plaintiffs have delusions that they're big enough to tie up Sony
> in court by throwing money at them.
Like individual vs corporation lawsuits, sometimes a "what if" is enough for
a settlement, especially there's no message that need to be sent. Here
though, they probably won't, or every writers in the world start may start
looking for movies that some what resemble their works.
I got a fourth one. If the lawsuit is even semi-successful, the playwrite's
reputation would take a blow. Possibly damaging his carreer.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> According to the original post they are claiming over 60 points of
>> Unique similarity, and that a specific story is being copied.
Stephenls <step...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> For anyone who's interested, the legal document is here:
> http://homepages.cquest.utoronto.ca/~cks/whitewolf.complaint.pdf
Hm. A huge number of the similarities make me think, "Wow, Anne Rice
should get in on this." Another large group makes me think, "OK, they've
both actually read Bram Stoker and some older myths, instead of just
relying on film vampires." And the plot makes me think, "Yeah, that's a
pretty obvious translation of Romeo & Juliet."
However, there are a few points that look like the screenwriter plays
Vampire or Werewolf and cribbed from the game books, so there is
actually a little meat to it.
Pope Jubal
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> > The reason it exists in the first place is to ensure
> > that works exist to pass into the public domain. In return for this,
> > authors are given a LIMITED TIME exclusive privilige to make copies.
>
> Yes, that would be life of the author plus 70 years. There is
> nothing currently in copyright law that prohibits the
> heirs/assigns of the original copyright from re-publishing the
> same works with a new copyright at;
>
> "life of the original author + 69 years"
>
> to effectively extend that copyright protection for another
> timespan equal to:
>
> "Lifespan of the current copyright holder plus another 70 years"
Actually, it doesn't work that way. It's lifespan of the original
author plus 70 years. If they re-publish the work, it still has the
original author. If they make significant changes, then they could
call it a new work and that new work would be subject to copyright for
life+70 of the new author, but the first work will be public domain at
the end of the original life of original author plus an original 70
original years.
...except that we all know that it won't really happen that way.
Nothing has entered the public domain through the expiration of its
copyright for about a century. The reason is not that you can "renew"
your copyright by republishing it, though. The real reason is that
the laws keep changing and retroactively extending the period of
copyright every time that something expensive (e.g. Mickey Mouse) is
about to expire.
> Conceivably, one could hold a copyright indefinitely this way. (In
> fact, some corporations are now doing just this... maintaining
> ownership of specific ideas at the expense of the general public
> using the very laws originally intended to provide the public with
> a means of access to the ideas or works in the first place.)
I'll agree that copyright is effectively indefinite right now but only
because everyone should reasonably expect the period to be extended
once again when Mickey is about to go public once more.
> Do I need to cite some specific examples of this for you?
Yes, please.
> With Regards,
> Dirk
Pope Jubal
Jubal no Oni
Dark Oracle of Jell-O
---
Seebs
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
>> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
>Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
>copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
>unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
No, you have rights to the *text you used to describe it*.
>Ask your attorney if you don't believe me.
I could, but I've bugged him enough this week. ;)
>Whether your idea is original or not. That is another matter
>entirely, which many attorneys are happy to dispute.
Doesn't matter. Ideas themselves are not the subjects of copyright law.
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Doug Lampert
news:3f5cd2d7$0$1096$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> In article <kf%6b.9136$_26....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> >> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
> >> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
>
> >Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
> >copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
> >unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
>
> No, you have rights to the *text you used to describe it*.
And to derivative works based on that text, this is why the
makers of Harry Potter movies pay lots of money to J. K.
Rowling. They do not use the *text she used to describe it*,
but they are still clearly a derivative work.
This sort of thing is fairly common, authors have won this
sort of suit before and will again, because you can infringe
without using the exact same words.
In any case, a link to the brief has been posted, and looks
reasonable to me. About 20 of their points look like the sort of
thing that is quite unlikely to be independently developed, I
expect WW to win if this goes to court, and likely to win fairly
easily.
DougL
Wayne Shaw
> Or, maybe someone can clue in the folks down at WW that *ideas are NOT
>copyrightable*, no matter how much the RPG industry wants them to be.
Specific similarities of expression, however, are, and that's what
they're claiming the movie script overlaps with. Whether it's true or
not is a matter for judges, lawyers and juries to decide.
Terry Austin
news:vlp2dk1...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns93EEED8EB7605ta...@216.168.3.50...
>> blak...@aol.comix.net (BlakGard) wrote:
>
>> > Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
>
>> Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our
>> gentials to anything by White Wolf.
>
> Terry, you kinky *bitch*!
>
Don't you wish, pervo.
--
Larry Flynt for Governor
Bringing dignity back to the Governor's Mansion
Terry Austin
tau...@hyperbooks.com
Bradd W. Szonye
> And to derivative works based on that text, this is why the makers of
> Harry Potter movies pay lots of money to J. K. Rowling. They do not
> use the *text she used to describe it*, but they are still clearly a
> derivative work.
Yes, they do use the text. They use it in dialogue, and they use a large
amount of text like "Harry Potter," "quidditch," and "Care of Magical
Creatures" for non-fair-use purposes.
Sir Bob
I don't see it, really. If one presumes the initial idea of "Romeo and
Juliet" starring a vampire and a werewolf (a concept which certainly
predates White Wolf), the rest seems rather the obvious way to go about it -
a *committee* could have come up most of that stuff.
- Sir Bob.
Seebs
Doug Lampert <doug.l...@tdytsi.com> wrote:
>"Seebs" <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
>news:3f5cd2d7$0$1096$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
>And to derivative works based on that text, this is why the
>makers of Harry Potter movies pay lots of money to J. K.
>Rowling. They do not use the *text she used to describe it*,
>but they are still clearly a derivative work.
Right.
>This sort of thing is fairly common, authors have won this
>sort of suit before and will again, because you can infringe
>without using the exact same words.
Yes, but that's because *characters* get some protection. Settings
maybe a little. "ideas" don't at all.
>In any case, a link to the brief has been posted, and looks
>reasonable to me. About 20 of their points look like the sort of
>thing that is quite unlikely to be independently developed, I
>expect WW to win if this goes to court, and likely to win fairly
>easily.
I'm more interested in the "stole our story" than the "stole our setting"
claims.
Ed Chauvin IV
>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>
>> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
>> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
>
>Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
>copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
>unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
>Ask your attorney if you don't believe me.
I don't believe you, but that's only because you're wrong. Ideas are
patentable and/or trademarkable, but not copyrightable. Copyrights
cover only a given expression of an idea. A book about vampires is
protected by copyright, the idea of a story about vampires is not. If
you're the first to come up with a new method of baking cookies (not
just a new recipe, mind you a new *method*) and you publish the recipe
in a book, I can't distribute copies of the recipe. What I can do,
even if you've obtained a patent on the method, is write my own
version of the recipe and distribute copies of that. This is why
Coca~cola keeps their recipe a secret. They can't protect the rights
to use the recipe or distribute it, so they must protect the actual
recipe.
Ed Chauvin IV
--
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed,
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
Stephenls
> I don't see it, really. If one presumes the initial idea of "Romeo and
> Juliet" starring a vampire and a werewolf (a concept which certainly
> predates White Wolf), the rest seems rather the obvious way to go about it -
> a *committee* could have come up most of that stuff.
On the other hand, the next movie written by the guys who wrote
Underworld, with a name I forget, is about black-ops ghosts working for
the CIA... which is almost exactly the premise of White Wolf's latest
game, Orpheus. The only major difference is that in Orpheus, the ghosts
work for a private corporation called Orpheus Group.
The evidence is thin and circumstantial, yes. But there's an awful
/lot/ of it. I honestly don't think this is only about money -- White
Wolf people have mentioned in the past being a bit ticked off about
Blade, which had 13 elders from 13 distinct vampire clans; vampire
servants called familiars; a civil conflict between the old, established
vampires and the younger, more modern ones; and an ancient vampire text
written in a forgotten language filled with prophecies about the end of
the world; all as central plot points. None of which were ever in any
of the Blade comics.
There are a whole slew of vampire legends throughout the world, and
building a vampire mythos is a bit like putting together Lego blocks.
White Wolf is not claiming that any given Lego block belongs to them --
they're claiming that when other people make up vampires from a whole
bunch of mythology, and the end result is damn near identical to the
specific mythology structure that White Wolf has built, with the same
blocks in the same places, then somebody's not playing fair.
I mentioned above that I don't think White Wolf is doing this strictly
for the money. I think they're at least partially doing it because
they're sick of people not giving them credit.
Geoffrey Brent
> Mere moments before death, Geoffrey Brent hastily scrawled:
>
>>Marc wrote:
>>
>>
>>> No, you cannot copyright an idea, only a specific implementation of it.
>>
>>You can't copyright *anything*.
>
>
> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
> copyrights to a work".
More than semantics. Some do indeed use it as shorthand. But others
(probably misled by the shorthand usage) talk about "copyrighting" their
work in a way that makes it clear they _don't_ understand how it works -
that they think "copyright" really is a verb, something you have to *do*
(by registering, or adding a (C), or whatever).
This leads to such misconceptions as "if it doesn't carry a copyright
notice, there's no copyright".
> You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
On this we are in agreement.
Bryan J. Maloney
> Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
>> The reason it exists in the first place is to ensure
>> that works exist to pass into the public domain. In return for this,
>> authors are given a LIMITED TIME exclusive privilige to make copies.
>
> Yes, that would be life of the author plus 70 years. There is
> nothing currently in copyright law that prohibits the
> heirs/assigns of the original copyright from re-publishing the
> same works with a new copyright at;
>
> "life of the original author + 69 years"
>
> to effectively extend that copyright protection for another
> timespan equal to:
>
> "Lifespan of the current copyright holder plus another 70 years"
>
> Conceivably, one could hold a copyright indefinitely this way.
Wrong, o stupid one. The original work goes out of copyright as soon as
the time limit expires on THE ORIGINAL WORK. New editions might be
covered by a new copyright, but the original will have passed into the
public domain. Thus, there would be no limit on derivative works,
therefrom.
Oh, and what about your dimwitted claim that copyright applies to ideas?
Loren Davis
> Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
> copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
> unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
> Ask your attorney if you don't believe me.
> Whether your idea is original or not. That is another matter
> entirely, which many attorneys are happy to dispute.
Dirk, you have no idea what you're talking about. You're only
embarrassing yourself. Please stop.
The relevant U.S. law is USC Title 17, which you can find at
<http://uscode.house.gov/title_17.htm>. Please read it.
Sir Bob
news:Xns93F0C7B48511Ad...@206.141.193.32...
> Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> nattered on
> thusnews:L507b.9190$_26....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> > Bryan J. Maloney wrote:
> >> The reason it exists in the first place is to ensure
> >> that works exist to pass into the public domain. In return for this,
> >> authors are given a LIMITED TIME exclusive privilige to make copies.
> >
> > Yes, that would be life of the author plus 70 years. There is
> > nothing currently in copyright law that prohibits the
> > heirs/assigns of the original copyright from re-publishing the
> > same works with a new copyright at;
> >
> > "life of the original author + 69 years"
> >
> > to effectively extend that copyright protection for another
> > timespan equal to:
> >
> > "Lifespan of the current copyright holder plus another 70 years"
> >
> > Conceivably, one could hold a copyright indefinitely this way.
>
> Wrong, o stupid one. The original work goes out of copyright as soon as
> the time limit expires on THE ORIGINAL WORK. New editions might be
> covered by a new copyright, but the original will have passed into the
> public domain.
<snip>
This can, of course, be circumvented by acquiring and destroying all extant
copies of the original prior to publishing the new edition; IIRC, Disney did
this with some of their earliest animated shorts to prevent them from
becoming public domain.
- Sir Bob.
Kevin Lowe
wrote:
> Sir Bob wrote:
>
> > I don't see it, really. If one presumes the initial idea of "Romeo and
> > Juliet" starring a vampire and a werewolf (a concept which certainly
> > predates White Wolf), the rest seems rather the obvious way to go about it -
> > a *committee* could have come up most of that stuff.
>
> On the other hand, the next movie written by the guys who wrote
> Underworld, with a name I forget, is about black-ops ghosts working for
> the CIA... which is almost exactly the premise of White Wolf's latest
> game, Orpheus. The only major difference is that in Orpheus, the ghosts
> work for a private corporation called Orpheus Group.
>
> The evidence is thin and circumstantial, yes. But there's an awful
> /lot/ of it. I honestly don't think this is only about money -- White
> Wolf people have mentioned in the past being a bit ticked off about
> Blade, which had 13 elders from 13 distinct vampire clans;
13 is a "cool" number, and WW have no monopoly on the idea of vampire
"bloodlines".
> vampire servants called familiars;
Again, not new in itself.
> a civil conflict between the old, established
> vampires and the younger, more modern ones;
I think you'll find this plot is so old that pro wrestling fans are sick
of it. :-)
> and an ancient vampire text
> written in a forgotten language filled with prophecies about the end of
> the world;
The Fifth Element has an ancient alien text written in a forgotten
language filled with prophecies about the end of the world. It's not
earthshaking that they made it a vampire text in a vampire flick.
> There are a whole slew of vampire legends throughout the world, and
> building a vampire mythos is a bit like putting together Lego blocks.
> White Wolf is not claiming that any given Lego block belongs to them --
> they're claiming that when other people make up vampires from a whole
> bunch of mythology, and the end result is damn near identical to the
> specific mythology structure that White Wolf has built, with the same
> blocks in the same places, then somebody's not playing fair.
>
> I mentioned above that I don't think White Wolf is doing this strictly
> for the money. I think they're at least partially doing it because
> they're sick of people not giving them credit.
As someone else said, a committee could come up with that stuff fairly
easily. I'm not saying it wasn't lifted, because it could well have
been. But it's not clever or non-obvious stuff. I could believe
parallel evolution was responsible.
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Stephenls
> 13 is a "cool" number, and WW have no monopoly on the idea of vampire
> "bloodlines".
> Again, not new in itself.
> I think you'll find this plot is so old that pro wrestling fans are sick
> of it. :-)
> The Fifth Element has an ancient alien text written in a forgotten
> language filled with prophecies about the end of the world. It's not
> earthshaking that they made it a vampire text in a vampire flick.
Didn't I make specific mention of how White Wolf isn't claiming
ownership of those specific elements, and how they're all fairly common?
Why not address the actual point I was making?
Bryan J. Maloney
thusnews:3f5d2bd7$1...@news3.accesscomm.ca:
> This can, of course, be circumvented by acquiring and destroying all
> extant copies of the original prior to publishing the new edition;
> IIRC, Disney did this with some of their earliest animated shorts to
> prevent them from becoming public domain.
What Disney did was buy a new law, thus perverting the intent of
copyright.
Matthew Miller
> protected by copyright, the idea of a story about vampires is not. If
> you're the first to come up with a new method of baking cookies (not
> just a new recipe, mind you a new *method*) and you publish the recipe
> in a book, I can't distribute copies of the recipe. What I can do,
> even if you've obtained a patent on the method, is write my own
> version of the recipe and distribute copies of that. This is why
> Coca~cola keeps their recipe a secret. They can't protect the rights
> to use the recipe or distribute it, so they must protect the actual
> recipe.
Actually, if they've patented it, you're not allowed to even develop your
own. That's the whole idea -- patents are, in a way, the opposite of trade
secrets. To get one, one must disclose the whole idea in a reproducible
way, and in exchange, one gets a limited-time monopoly on the idea itself.
This is why patents by design must have a relatively short lifetime
(otherwise they miss their point), and particularly why software patents
are so disturbing (20 years is eternity in computer-time. 3 or 5 years
might be a reasonable compromise.)
--
Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Bradd W. Szonye
> Actually, if they've patented it, you're not allowed to even develop
> your own. That's the whole idea -- patents are, in a way, the opposite
> of trade secrets. To get one, one must disclose the whole idea in a
> reproducible way, and in exchange, one gets a limited-time monopoly on
> the idea itself.
However, you are required to disclose your technique, which means that
you cannot prevent your competitors from duplicating it once the patent
expires. Also, IIRC you can build on somebody else's invention and
patent your improvements, even before the original technique expires.
The point of patents is to let competitors use the inventions, but only
according to the owner's terms. It's supposed to increase the rate of
innovation by allowing further development (by the original inventor or
his competitors) while giving the original inventer a major incentive
(control over the invention).
> This is why patents by design must have a relatively short lifetime
> (otherwise they miss their point), and particularly why software
> patents are so disturbing (20 years is eternity in computer-time. 3 or
> 5 years might be a reasonable compromise.)
Software patents work well enough for large companies. It gives them
incentives to invent good new stuff rather than just rehashes and minor
features. They trade their inventions back and forth, and the best
inventors profit from it.
The problem with software patents is that there's a very low awareness
of who owns what in the software world. This is made worse by the
existence of sleazy "inventors" who quietly patent some obvious process
and then use them take real developers by surprise. Without a good
patent lawyer, developing software is like walking through a minefield.
Another major problem is that software patents effectively act as a
barrier to entry for small developers. Like I said, they work great for
large companies, who have a large portfolio to trade. They don't work
nearly as well for a hobbyist or small company who has no inventions to
trade for the ones owned by the big boys. The large companies could make
this easier by offering reasonable licensing terms. Unfortuntely, I've
seen companies like Unisys effectively shut down innovation by charging
up-front and per-unit charges that a small company simply cannot afford.
Furthermore, their licensing policies make free-as-in-speech software
totally impossible.
I believe that it *is* possible to have sane software patenting
practices, and you wouldn't even need legislation to achieve it. You
would, however, need to get rid of all the "submarine patent" holders,
which is probably impossible, practically speaking.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Also, IIRC you can build on somebody else's invention and patent your
> improvements, even before the original technique expires.
By the way: The point of this is to get cross-licensing deals. If you
patent a significant improvement, the original inventor is likely to
want it. You make a deal with him: He can use your improvement, so long
as you can use the original invention. The end result is that you both
benefit from both inventions (and the lawyers make a lot of money).
Dirk Collins
> I don't believe you, but that's only because you're wrong. Ideas are
> patentable and/or trademarkable, but not copyrightable. Copyrights
> cover only a given expression of an idea.
The given expression can be comprehensive enough to compose the
entire idea.
> A book about vampires is
> protected by copyright, the idea of a story about vampires is not. If
> you're the first to come up with a new method of baking cookies (not
> just a new recipe, mind you a new *method*) and you publish the recipe
> in a book, I can't distribute copies of the recipe.
Exactly.
> What I can do,
> even if you've obtained a patent on the method, is write my own
> version of the recipe and distribute copies of that. This is why
> Coca~cola keeps their recipe a secret. They can't protect the rights
> to use the recipe or distribute it, so they must protect the actual
> recipe.
That would be Pepsi. Not Coke. And Coke can't be protected because
the process to make Coke was patented, not copyrighted. Patents
don't protect ideas, copyrights do.
Duh.
Re,
Dirk
Dirk Collins
>>Do I need to cite some specific examples of this for you?
>
> Yes, please.
O.K., I'll start with my favorite.
Christopher Tolkien, publishing the Silmarillion. Original
Copyright on it is 1977. Current copy I have (The newest) is
copyrighted 1998.
Does the copyright on Silmarillion expire in 2043 (70 years after
the death of J.R.R. Tolkien)
or does it expire in 2047 (70 years after original publication)
or does the copyright expire 2068 (70 years after the first
publication of my newest copy)?
It's like a real trick question, huh?
With Regards,
Dirk
Dirk Collins
> Wrong, o stupid one. The original work goes out of copyright as soon as
> the time limit expires on THE ORIGINAL WORK. New editions might be
> covered by a new copyright, but the original will have passed into the
> public domain. Thus, there would be no limit on derivative works,
> therefrom.
Mmmm-hmmm. Sure. Anything you wish...
Let's suppose I wrote a story in 2000 with the following sentence
in it.
"The Quick Brown Fox Jumped over the Lazy Dog."
Let's further suppose I copyrighted the story.
Let's suppose I write a new edition of the story in 2003. The
story was significantly altered, but included;
"The Quick Brown Fox Jumped over the Lazy Dog."
In 2071 you write the Quick Brown Fox RPG and include;
"The Quick Brown Fox Jumped over the Lazy Dog."
in your RPG. Barring any changes in the current copyright law (and
there is a catch with this... for the copyright law is likely to
change even more in favor of the original publisher), I can
prosecute and win for a copyright infringement violation on the
2003 work.
QED
With Regards,
Dirk
>
> Oh, and what about your dimwitted claim that copyright applies to ideas?
>
See Above.
Dirk Collins
> The relevant U.S. law is USC Title 17, which you can find at
> <http://uscode.house.gov/title_17.htm>. Please read it.
Expired. Partially replaced and amended in 2000 by the Digital
Millenium Copyright Act. Keep reading.
Re,
Dirk
Bradd W. Szonye
>> I don't believe you, but that's only because you're wrong. Ideas are
>> patentable and/or trademarkable, but not copyrightable. Copyrights
>> cover only a given expression of an idea.
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> The given expression can be comprehensive enough to compose the entire
> idea.
IIRC, if an expression is the only reasonable way to express the idea,
then the expression itself is not subject to copyright. Therefore, if
I'm understanding you correctly, you've got this exactly backward. If
the expression equals the idea, that doesn't make the idea subject to
copyright; instead, it gives the alleged infringer a defense that may
nullify the expression's copyright.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Christopher Tolkien, publishing the Silmarillion. Original Copyright
> on it is 1977. Current copy I have (The newest) is copyrighted 1998.
>
> Does the copyright on Silmarillion expire in 2043 (70 years after the
> death of J.R.R. Tolkien)
On portions of it, yes. Specifically, J.R.R's text becomes public domain
at that time.
> or does it expire in 2047 (70 years after original publication)
On the portions contributed by Christopher, yes. Any editorial changes
that he made remain subject to copyright until then.
> or does the copyright expire 2068 (70 years after the first
> publication of my newest copy)?
Portions of it may not become public domain until then. For example,
cover art new to that edition will probably expire then. For most of the
work, however, any copyright will be irrelevant because the vast
majority of the content enters the public domain.
> It's like a real trick question, huh?
It's only tricky if you're stupid.
Bradd W. Szonye
> Let's suppose I wrote a story in 2000 with the following sentence in it.
>
> "The Quick Brown Fox Jumped over the Lazy Dog."
>
> Let's further suppose I copyrighted the story.
You can't copyright the story. Copyright is automatic. You can register
the copyright, but that's not the same thing.
> Let's suppose I write a new edition of the story in 2003. The story
> was significantly altered, but included:
>
> "The Quick Brown Fox Jumped over the Lazy Dog."
OK. The new portions of this work are subject to copyright until 2073
(assuming that your publication + 70 figure is correct). However, this
sentence enters the public domain in 2070.
> In 2071 you write the Quick Brown Fox RPG and include;
>
> "The Quick Brown Fox Jumped over the Lazy Dog."
>
> in your RPG. Barring any changes in the current copyright law (and
> there is a catch with this... for the copyright law is likely to
> change even more in favor of the original publisher), I can prosecute
> and win for a copyright infringement violation on the 2003 work.
No, you can't (barring legal insanity), because that portion of the
story has already entered the public domain.
You might want to learn WTF you're talking about before spewing nonsense.
Dirk Collins
> IIRC, if an expression is the only reasonable way to express the idea,
> then the expression itself is not subject to copyright. Therefore, if
> I'm understanding you correctly, you've got this exactly backward. If
> the expression equals the idea, that doesn't make the idea subject to
> copyright; instead, it gives the alleged infringer a defense that may
> nullify the expression's copyright.
That was a good try. Bradd. Show me how you can duplicate an
expression without writing it down, or depicting it in some
manner, and I'll go along with that.
I would say there are some ideas that can't be protected by
copyright, or patent, or other IP law becuase of the method used
to communicate them, however any such method is much slooower than
the written word, or graphics, and I would say such an idea would
not be popular, nor likely to catch on in the general population
unless it was profound.
With Regards,
Dirk
Dirk Collins
> No, you can't (barring legal insanity), because that portion of the
> story has already entered the public domain.
No;
"The Quick Brown Fox jumped over the Lazy Dog" portion of the
story can't enter public domain until 2073, becuase it was
"Edited" in 2003. The other portions from the 2000 edition that
were omitted from the 2003 edition do become public domain.
With Regards,
Dirk
Bradd W. Szonye
>> The relevant U.S. law is USC Title 17, which you can find at
>> <http://uscode.house.gov/title_17.htm>. Please read it.
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Expired.
No, it hasn't.
> Partially replaced and amended in 2000 by the Digital Millenium
> Copyright Act. Keep reading.
That's a summary of the amendments made to the title. Those amendments
don't obsolete the document; they're *included* in it. Specifically,
note:
Pub. L. 105-304, Sec. 1, Oct. 28, 1998, 112 Stat. 2860, provided
that: ''This Act (enacting section 512 and chapters 12 and 13 of
this title and section 4001 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial
Procedure, amending this section, sections 104, 104A, 108, 112, 114,
117, 411, 507, 701, and 801 to 803 of this title, section 5314 of
Title 5, Government Organization and Employees, sections 1338, 1400,
and 1498 of Title 28, and section 3 of Title 35, Patents, and
enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and sections
108, 109, 112, 114, 512, and 1301 of this title) may be cited as the
'Digital Millennium Copyright Act'.''
The DMCA *enacted* two chapters of Title 17, dumbass.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> IIRC, if an expression is the only reasonable way to express the idea,
>> then the expression itself is not subject to copyright. Therefore, if
>> I'm understanding you correctly, you've got this exactly backward. If
>> the expression equals the idea, that doesn't make the idea subject to
>> copyright; instead, it gives the alleged infringer a defense that may
>> nullify the expression's copyright.
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> That was a good try. Bradd. Show me how you can duplicate an
> expression without writing it down, or depicting it in some manner,
> and I'll go along with that.
You completely missed the point of the above paragraph, you
semi-literate sack of birdshit. The form or existence of the expression
is *irrelevant* when it's the only reasonable expression of an idea. In
such cases, the expression is not subject to copyright because it's
indistinguishable from the idea itself.
> I would say there are some ideas that can't be protected by copyright,
> or patent, or other IP law becuase of the method used to communicate
> them, however any such method is much slooower than the written word,
> or graphics, and I would say such an idea would not be popular, nor
> likely to catch on in the general population unless it was profound.
The method of communication is irrelevant, you drooling advocate of
scrotal self-repair. The "one reasonable expression" exception applies
to cases like game mechanics, where there's really only one way to
write, e.g., "Roll a 20-sided die and add 1 to the result" without
jumping through contortions. Sure, you could rephrase that, but
copyright law says that you don't need to, because it's a trivial
expression of an idea or process.
--
Bradd W. Szonye, who is not a lawyer
http://www.szonye.com/bradd
Bradd W. Szonye
>> No, you can't (barring legal insanity), because that portion of the
>> story has already entered the public domain.
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> No; "The Quick Brown Fox jumped over the Lazy Dog" portion of the
> story can't enter public domain until 2073, becuase it was "Edited" in
> 2003.
Bullshit. Try again, you lover of digital rectal autostimulation.
Dirk Collins
> The method of communication is irrelevant, you drooling advocate of
> scrotal self-repair. The "one reasonable expression" exception applies
> to cases like game mechanics, where there's really only one way to
> write, e.g., "Roll a 20-sided die and add 1 to the result" without
> jumping through contortions. Sure, you could rephrase that, but
> copyright law says that you don't need to, because it's a trivial
> expression of an idea or process.
Wrong.wrong.wrong.... look for yourself what the Supreme Court has
to say about the matter;
http://www.faegre.com/articles/article_1089.asp
http://www.cni.org/Hforums/cni-copyright/1998-04/0431.html
http://www.klettrooney.com/newsroom/attorney_articles/delaw0603_copyright.pdf
http://www.rightsforartists.com/copyright.html
http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/intranet/committees/FacDevCom/guidebk/policies/copyrite.htm
Read especially the portion in the hawaii.edu copyright guide that
states specifically;
"If the work says that it is in the public domain, then it is. A
published work with a date earlier than 75 years ago is probably
public domain, and in fact, some companies make a good living by
republishing such works and *copyrighting* them in their new format."
Copyrighted in the new format. How about that. The same idea, once
again *out* of the public domain. QED. When you are ready to join
the rest of us in the 21st century, let me know.
And... I found out having to actually look this stuff up, that
copyright for U.S. authors has been extended by an additional 20
years by the supreme court on June 3rd, so that now U.S. copyright
law matches European copyright law and copyright is now life of
the Author + 95 years.
With Regards,
Dirk
Tim Fitzmaurice
> "Seebs" <se...@plethora.net> wrote in message
> news:3f5cd2d7$0$1096$3c09...@news.plethora.net...
> > In article <kf%6b.9136$_26....@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
> > Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
> > >> Semantics. "To copyright a work" is common shorthand for "to claim
> > >> copyrights to a work". You cannot claim copyrights to an idea.
> >
> > >Except... if you were the first to write down the idea. You have
> > >copyright to that new idea then, and can effectively prohibit
> > >unauthorized duplication, display, publication, and distribution.
> >
> > No, you have rights to the *text you used to describe it*.
>
> And to derivative works based on that text, this is why the
> makers of Harry Potter movies pay lots of money to J. K.
> Rowling. They do not use the *text she used to describe it*,
> but they are still clearly a derivative work.
But you can take a world, write in that world and gain the copyright to
it. One major fantasy author found this out the hard way and has since
said no fan fic. Besides Harry Potter is protected by a lot more than just
copyright - there are a fistful of trademarks (which is how you can
readily defend an identifiable story and even extend that protection
beyond the life of what copyright gives)
> This sort of thing is fairly common, authors have won this
> sort of suit before and will again, because you can infringe
> without using the exact same words.
Indeed - however many people overextend what derivative protects by saying
based on is an equivalent whereas it needs to be adapted....as you say
filing off the names and rewriting the book or moving the same story to a
different medium does land you in the crap.
Tim
--
When playing rugby, its not the winning that counts, but the taking apart
ICQ: 5178568
Seebs
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I would say there are some ideas that can't be protected by
>copyright, or patent, or other IP law becuase of the method used
>to communicate them, however any such method is much slooower than
>the written word, or graphics, and I would say such an idea would
>not be popular, nor likely to catch on in the general population
>unless it was profound.
Er, no.
Read the bloody law already. Read _Allen v. Academic Games_, where a court
held that the copyright on a given expression was invalid because it was
a simple statement of an idea in English, and giving protection to the
expression would have given a monopoly on the *idea*, and copyright law
cannot be twisted into doing that. (This is, according to my lawyer, called
the "it's a red ball" argument; a plain expression, such as "it is a red
ball", is not copyrightable.)
-s
--
Copyright 2003, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ - YA blog. http://www.seebs.net/ - homepage.
C/Unix wizard, pro-commerce radical, spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
Seebs
Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>"If the work says that it is in the public domain, then it is. A
>published work with a date earlier than 75 years ago is probably
>public domain, and in fact, some companies make a good living by
>republishing such works and *copyrighting* them in their new format."
Yes. The *new format* is copyrighted. Not the material itself.
>Copyrighted in the new format. How about that. The same idea, once
>again *out* of the public domain. QED. When you are ready to join
>the rest of us in the 21st century, let me know.
No, you drooling idiot.
The original text is *STILL PUBLIC DOMAIN*.
What is protected is the *new organization or typesetting*.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> "If the work says that it is in the public domain, then it is. A
>> published work with a date earlier than 75 years ago is probably
>> public domain, and in fact, some companies make a good living by
>> republishing such works and *copyrighting* them in their new format."
Seebs <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> Yes. The *new format* is copyrighted. Not the material itself.
>> Copyrighted in the new format. How about that. The same idea, once
>> again *out* of the public domain. QED. When you are ready to join
>> the rest of us in the 21st century, let me know.
> No, you drooling idiot. The original text is *STILL PUBLIC DOMAIN*.
> What is protected is the *new organization or typesetting*.
Note that Disney wouldn't push so hard for copyright extensions if Dirk
were correct. They'd just need to lightly edit "Steamboat Willie" to get
an extra 70 years for Mickey Mouse. But that's not how it works. If the
copyright on any Mouse work expires, then *anyone* could use the Mickey
Mouse character in their own works without permission. Disney could
still protect specific works still under copyright, but they could no
longer protect the Mouse himself.
Bradd W. Szonye
>> "If the work says that it is in the public domain, then it is. A
>> published work with a date earlier than 75 years ago is probably
>> public domain, and in fact, some companies make a good living by
>> republishing such works and *copyrighting* them in their new format."
Seebs <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> The *new format* is copyrighted. Not the material itself.
Speaking of which:
The Library of France has a great collection of medieval art online. The
art itself is clearly in the public domain; it's hundreds of years old.
However, every image has a "Copyright Bibliotheque de France" watermark.
What are they claiming the rights for? The digital translation of the
original work? Would it be infringement to use those images on a
website?
Same goes for all of the similar online scans of public-domain works.
The Library of France is unusual only in that it actually asserts
copyright.
Basically, I'm wondering whether these scans are actually derivative
works with their own copyright. If so, then you could scan your own copy
of the original (ha ha, like that'll happen), but you couldn't use the
website's copies, because you'd be infringing upon their derivative
work. However, I suspect that they may not be derivative works, but
merely copies with no original content, which would leave them in the
public domain.
Any IP lawyers out there who can tell me whether the Library of France
has a valid claim here? Or are they just being arrogant jerks, defacing
this art with a bogus claim to copyright?
Julie d'Aubigny
>
> LOL!
>
> So, "vampires fighting werewolves" is exclusively the property of White
> Wolf?
>
> ROTFLMFAO!!! Someone needs to fly down and punch everyone at WW who is
> involved in the "lawsuit". REALLY HARD!
>
> Or, maybe someone can clue in the folks down at WW that *ideas are NOT
> copyrightable*, no matter how much the RPG industry wants them to be.
No, but it seems to be popular to take bits and pieces of the case out
of context with the rest of the case, and then mock White Wolf for those
bits and pieces. Anyone who's read the complaint can actually tell that
"vampires fighting werewolves" is not claimed anywhere in the complaint
as exclusively White Wolf's property. It's one of the cited points of
similarity. Of which there are sixty.
--
Elizabeth D. Brooks | kalima...@oakthorne.com | US2002021724
Listowner: Aberrants_Worldwide, Fading_Suns_Games, TrinityRPG
AeonAdventure | "Dobby likes us!" -- Smeagol
-- http://www.theonering.net/scrapbook/view/6856
Tim Fitzmaurice
This is of course why I think Disney are sinking a lot of money into a
deep hole if they are the driving force behind this - since Mickey is
Trademarked to the eyeballs and it is an active property they dont need
the copyright protection to hold onto the mouse.
Fitz
<bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>The Library of France has a great collection of medieval art online. The
>art itself is clearly in the public domain; it's hundreds of years old.
>However, every image has a "Copyright Bibliotheque de France" watermark.
>What are they claiming the rights for? The digital translation of the
>original work? Would it be infringement to use those images on a
>website?
>
>Same goes for all of the similar online scans of public-domain works.
>The Library of France is unusual only in that it actually asserts
>copyright.
>
>Basically, I'm wondering whether these scans are actually derivative
>works with their own copyright. If so, then you could scan your own copy
>of the original (ha ha, like that'll happen), but you couldn't use the
>website's copies, because you'd be infringing upon their derivative
>work. However, I suspect that they may not be derivative works, but
>merely copies with no original content, which would leave them in the
>public domain.
>
>Any IP lawyers out there who can tell me whether the Library of France
>has a valid claim here? Or are they just being arrogant jerks, defacing
>this art with a bogus claim to copyright?
They can assert copyright on those scans. If you take a photograph of
a work in the public domain, you can claim copyright on that
*photograph*, even though the subject may no longer be protected by
copyright.
Although this sounds lame, in fact it has a reasonable basis: if it
were not so, then any image which included a public domain image as a
dominant feature would itself have to fall into the public domain.
Regrettably, in this instance the works aren't necessarily available
for the obvious recourse, which is simply to take your own photographs
of the images, because the Library of France gas the right to restrict
what goes on in its own premises. Effectively it can stop people from
copying the works even though they are in the public domain. Having
said that though, I don't know first hand how open they are to people
taking their own images; assuming that you comply with reasonable
conservation strictures, it may be that all you have to do is ask.
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fitz
http://fitz.jsr.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Matthew Miller
>> Actually, if they've patented it, you're not allowed to even develop
>> your own. That's the whole idea -- patents are, in a way, the opposite
>> of trade secrets. To get one, one must disclose the whole idea in a
>> reproducible way, and in exchange, one gets a limited-time monopoly on
>> the idea itself.
> However, you are required to disclose your technique, which means that
> you cannot prevent your competitors from duplicating it once the patent
> expires. Also, IIRC you can build on somebody else's invention and
>
Hey, that's not "however", that's what I said. :)
Kevin Lowe
wrote:
> Kevin Lowe wrote:
>
> > 13 is a "cool" number, and WW have no monopoly on the idea of vampire
> > "bloodlines".
>
> > Again, not new in itself.
>
> > I think you'll find this plot is so old that pro wrestling fans are sick
> > of it. :-)
>
> > The Fifth Element has an ancient alien text written in a forgotten
> > language filled with prophecies about the end of the world. It's not
> > earthshaking that they made it a vampire text in a vampire flick.
>
> Didn't I make specific mention of how White Wolf isn't claiming
> ownership of those specific elements, and how they're all fairly common?
> Why not address the actual point I was making?
What point did you think you were making?
Kevin Lowe,
Tasmania.
Pope Jubal
> > It's like a real trick question, huh?
>
> It's only tricky if you're stupid.
Thanks, Bradd. I was going to reply to the post, but you did it more
politely, more clearly and more consisely than I would have.
To be fair, though, it is tricky if you are either stupid or ignorant.
Either one will work just fine.
Pope Jubal
Jubal no Oni
Dark Oracle of Jell-O
---
Sorcier
>
> No, but it seems to be popular to take bits and pieces of the case out
> of context with the rest of the case, and then mock White Wolf for those
> bits and pieces. Anyone who's read the complaint can actually tell that
> "vampires fighting werewolves" is not claimed anywhere in the complaint
> as exclusively White Wolf's property. It's one of the cited points of
> similarity. Of which there are sixty.
The more telling being the similiarities in plot and character
to Collins' novel. But with the genders of the Vampire and
Werewolf switched.
I did find the comparison to a seperately existing bad-ass
vampire chick as rather spurious, though.
In my impression, the movie's world is heavily inspired by WoD.
Although almost any given world element is independently derivable
or borrowable from another source.
The plotline, from what WW writes, sounds like a direct steal.
(Here, I'm referring to specific details of relations between
supporting cast, not just the back cover blurb type stuff.)
Specifics of design claimed to be lifted from WoD other than
the above two types look spurious though. But likely useful
for establishing as many points of correlation as possible.
If someone can post a copy of the "sixty points", I think it
would be rather an interesting thread for us to debate over
the specifics. I tried to do this but haven't found a tool
yet to break the scanned .pdf into text.
Crosspost added to rec.games.frp.misc as this really belongs there.
Stephenls
> What point did you think you were making?
Individually, the points are without merit. /As a whole,/ this might
not be the case. I said this, and then you persisted in addressing the
individual points individually in your reply.
--
Stephenls
Geek
"Go then. There are other worlds than these."
Malachias Invictus
"Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93F08668C2261ta...@216.168.3.50...
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:vlp2dk1...@corp.supernews.com:
>
> >
> > "Terry Austin" <tau...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns93EEED8EB7605ta...@216.168.3.50...
> >> blak...@aol.comix.net (BlakGard) wrote:
> >
> >> > Personally, I've always preferred it over anything by White Wolf.
> >
> >> Yeah, but some of us would prefer a cheese grater applies to our
> >> gentials to anything by White Wolf.
> >
> > Terry, you kinky *bitch*!
> >
> Don't you wish, pervo.
Yes, I do. I want to see pictures, too.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
> > Loren Davis wrote:
> >> The relevant U.S. law is USC Title 17, which you can find at
> >> <http://uscode.house.gov/title_17.htm>. Please read it.
>
> Dirk Collins <dirk.c...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > Expired.
>
> No, it hasn't.
<snip>
> The DMCA *enacted* two chapters of Title 17, dumbass.
Damn, you beat me to the punch ;-)
Bradd W. Szonye
> Bradd W. Szonye <bradd...@szonye.com> wrote:
>>> Actually, if they've patented it, you're not allowed to even develop
>>> your own. That's the whole idea -- patents are, in a way, the opposite
>>> of trade secrets. To get one, one must disclose the whole idea in a
>>> reproducible way, and in exchange, one gets a limited-time monopoly on
>>> the idea itself.
>> However, you are required to disclose your technique, which means that
>> you cannot prevent your competitors from duplicating it once the patent
>> expires. Also, IIRC you can build on somebody else's invention and
> Hey, that's not "however", that's what I said. :)
I must have misunderstood some or all of what you wrote, then.
Dirk Collins
> The original text is *STILL PUBLIC DOMAIN*.
>
> What is protected is the *new organization or typesetting*.
Well, Thanks for clearing that up for me. My apologies go out to
those to those whom have patiently endured my rant.
What good is a copyright on the "New Organization or Typesetting"
if the heart of the idea (the core content) is no longer protected
by copyright?
With Regards,
Dirk
Robert FISHER
>
> Well, Thanks for clearing that up for me. My apologies go out to those
> to those whom have patiently endured my rant.
>
> What good is a copyright on the "New Organization or Typesetting" if the
> heart of the idea (the core content) is no longer protected by copyright?
>
I can certainly accept that a good presentation of public domain
material is worth something. I could see myself buying, for instance, a
beautifully illustrated and typeset copy of--I dunno--Shakespeare or
Morte D'Arthur or Beowulf or something.
Many publications of public domain works contain more than just new
organization, illustrations, and typesetting, though. There may be
introductions, commentary, footnotes, glosses, etc.
Just reprinting a literary work with nothing extra but the typesetting
takes work and money though. And there was a time when, if it weren't
for publishers investing in reprinting public domain works, those works
would be awfully hard to get your hands on.
(Actually, I recently bought a volume of Bulfinch's mythology from a
second-hand bookstore. Nothing exceptional about it, but I like having
it in book form.)
It seems a bit misleading to me that copyright notices on such things
aren't more specific, though.
What really annoys me is ebook publishers who sell copies of public
domain works with no extra artwork, commentary, or typesetting. Sure,
you can say its someone's own fault for paying for something they
could've gotten (practically) free from the Gutenberg project. But it
still seems to be a slimy practice to me.
--
Robert FISHER Robertus PISCATOR
valete et gratias vobis pro piscibus omnibus agimus
(Replies via email are presumed spam.)
(Responsa per cursus publicum electronicum praesumuntur sagnationes.)
Loren Davis
> "Stephenls" wrote:
> > Unfortunately, providing you with a link would be copyright infringement
> > if your reader is of the type that automatically makes them hyperlinks.
> > And we can't have that!
> *Patent* infringement. =P
No, there actually was at least one case, a few years back, where a
particularly computer-illiterate judge made an injunction against
hyperlinking to a magazine article under litigation. IIRC, the target
of the injunction just put the webpage back up with a bare URL in
place of the <a> tag, and both sites got slashdotted.
Whether it's patent infringement would depend on whether Stephen paid
royalties. :)