I asked TSR about the Morpheus site...
David P. Summers
****
I was going to post this question to the newgroup but I decided I would
direct it to you first.
Recently TSR made Morpheus (morp...@teleport.com) shut down his FTP site
for alleged copyright/trademark violations. Now many people have a
suspicion that the real reason for such action has little to do with
legitimate copyright/trademark concerns. The fact that many people feel
that TSR has never given a clear and reasonable set of guidlines
concerning what is proper or improper.
To help with this issue, can you provide a specific list of things that
you were objecting to at Morpheus' site? This would provide a concrete
example of the sort of things you are talking about.
*****
And I recieve the following response....
*****
>>>
To help with this issue, can you provide a specific list of things that you
were objecting to at Morpheus' site? This would provide a concrete example
of the sort of things you are talking about.
>>>
Providing a specific list of things that were in violation would only serve
to fuel the debate even more. There were some obvious infringements, however,
such as scans of TSR artwork. Our posting of a list of objectionable material
would only serve to have people ask us the next logical question: "Could you
please defend each one of these items as it pertains to your
copyrights/trademarks?"
Jim Butler
TSR, Inc.
*****
Clearly the use of scans of TSR artwork would be an infringement of their
rights. I didn't inquire if they would still have objections without
that artwork or what those objections would be since they didn't seem
inclined to say...
Stephen McNeil
Regarding a response he got from TSRJim (Jim Butler) about what material,
exactly, was at the Morpheus site, which said:
>>>>
>To help with this issue, can you provide a specific list of things that you
>were objecting to at Morpheus' site? This would provide a concrete example
>of the sort of things you are talking about.
>>>>
>
>Providing a specific list of things that were in violation would only serve
>to fuel the debate even more. There were some obvious infringements, however,
>such as scans of TSR artwork. Our posting of a list of objectionable material
>would only serve to have people ask us the next logical question: "Could you
>please defend each one of these items as it pertains to your
>copyrights/trademarks?"
Only serve to ask the next logical question?
Yeah, damn right it's the next logical question, seeing as how it's pretty
much the question *we've been asking TSR for about a year*!!! You know, a
year ago, when that ridiculous policy statement first showed up, and everybody
pointed out that you can't copywright "drow", and you *still* haven't changed
it?
Mr. Butler, why are you under the impression that actually clairifying the
issue is a bad thing?
Okay, if Morph had some scanned images on his web site, absolutely, copyright
violation. No question. Suppose you'd emailed him, told him to delete the
scans, and he had? You'd still want the site shut down, I guess.
Why? Look, players are out here, and we're gonna write adventures and spells
and classes and who knows what else using the game mechanics we bought from
you (you meaning Jim, anybody else at TSR, the company as a whole, whatever).
We're also gonna want to *share* them with one another. As long as it's all
original work, and as long as it's all got little disclaimer statements
("Blah, blah, and blah are all trademark TSR, Inc, etc etc") what the hell is
the problem?
By doing this, by adopting this ridiculous policy and course of action, you're
telling me that it's "unauthorized" for me to write an adventure and give it
to my friends, or to my gaming club, or to anybody who asks for a copy at a
Con. You're telling fanzines that it's "unauthorized" to publish any material
making any reference to any TSR product, unless maybe it's a review. You're
telling us to be as prolific and creative as we like with respect to your
inherently creation-oriented games, just as long as we don't tell anybody
about it.
It's pathetic, ridiculous, and stupid.
It's also a complete waste of time, since it can't possibly accomplish
anything, except pissing people off. Morph's shut down? He was sticking his
head in r.g.f.dnd every two weeks advertising that site, and he did it for
months. I give it a week before every bit of data is on another site
somewhere.
Steve McNeil
Dru A Smith
>
>There's no problem at all. Just release them at official TSR-sanctioned
>sites (AOL, GEnie, mpgn.com).
<snip>
>
>No, TSR still encourages gamers to create information for use in their own
>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
Jim, you're dangerously approaching "Rob Repp-ism". This is the
same tired rhetoric we heard from him. I would respectfully ask you
to explain why this is necessary.
And a non-Rob Repp-ish answer would avoid the following:
"Ask the legal department yourself"
"Because any thing you create which is for AD&D will violate
our copyrights/trademarks/etc" (especially if we never see a list
of those copyrights, etc)
"Because that's the way it is"
Of course, you could pass the buck to your new online rep (Sean Reynolds?),
but I'd hate to see the buck go further than that.
Dru Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------
"...all life is only a set of pictures in the brain, among which
there is no difference betwixt those born of real things and
those born of inward dreamings, and no cause to value the one
above the other"
-- H.P. Lovecraft, The Silver Key
Stephen McNeil
(In response to my statement that TSR doesn't want me to write an AD&D module
and give it to whomever I want...)
>No, TSR still encourages gamers to create information for use in their own
>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
Thanks for replying, Jim.
This is what I see as the crux of the matter. The "approved sites" are
precisely the problem. Most of the 'net has no access to AOL or Genie (and
wouldn't take it if you held them at vorpal-point). So we're limited to mpgn.
And most of the *world* doesn't have 'net access, period, so mpgn doesn't
help in a "world-at-large" sense.
But more to the point is that disclaimer you require. It explicitly states
that by publishing a personal work in the only "authorized" forum, the author
can never re-publish or distribute the work again, without the permission of
TSR! I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, unreasonable, and wholly unnecessary,
from both a legal and an ethical standpoint. The FASA disclaimer at the same
site makes no such demand - it's just a standard derivative works statement:
"use of trademarks etc should not be viewed as a challenge to those
trademarks."
As for my campaign vs the world at large, where's the line? If I give a
module I wrote to another DM (DM is trademarked, isn't it?) is that okay? If
I run the module as a tournament at a gaming club, and give copies to all 35
participants, is that "world-at-large"? If I mail the module to another game
club in a neighbouring city fo another tournament, is that "unauthorized" yet?
I really don't see the problem. As long as an independent work which mentions
TSR trademarks *says* that there are TSR trademarks, and that their use isn't
intended to challenge trademark status, why does TSR care?
Steve McNeil
Mark Baker
> There's no problem at all. Just release them at official TSR-sanctioned
> sites (AOL, GEnie, mpgn.com).
>
Everything here centres around three licensed sites: two of which are
effectively off-limits for non-US gamers (I'm always assured that GEnie
can be accessed locally from the UK, but no-one has ever been able to
tell me where or how) and one site which is highly restricted in the
number of anonymous ftp users that can access it, and is generally
impossible to access at convenient hours from in the UK.
I won't comment on the legal copyright issues, enough people are arguing
about those already, but as it stands the TSR net policy is limiting
exchange of gaming information to a very small subset of the world's
gaming population. Even just allowing mirror sites of mpgn would open
things up a bit.
--
Mark Baker
Tom Grant
P. Summers, Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov writes:
>Providing a specific list of things that were in violation would only
serve
>to fuel the debate even more. There were some obvious infringements,
however,
>such as scans of TSR artwork. Our posting of a list of objectionable
material
>would only serve to have people ask us the next logical question: "Could
you
>please defend each one of these items as it pertains to your
>copyrights/trademarks?"
>
been ambivalent about the response. Particularly, I share the concern of
many people about the ambiguity of TSR's presumed copyright over game
mechanics and other RPG components. This reply deepens my concern: why
not provide a list of specific types of copyright infringements?
Otherwise, here's TSR's position, as I understand it:
1. We claim a broad copyright over AD&D and many role-playing elements
used in AD&D.
2. We won't tell you what these elements are.
3. The best way to find out is to break this presumed copyright so that
we can threaten
you with a lawsuit.
TSRJim, did I miss something?
=================================================
"I've got to follow them. I'm their leader."
--Ledru-Rollin,
watching the mob, 1848
-------------------------------------------------
Tom Grant Senior Tech Writer
CSSD
Oracle Corporation
tgr...@us.oracle.com
415-506-8481
=================================================
Guy Robinson
: I sent the following message to TSRJim...
[...]
: And I recieve the following response....
: *****
: >>>
: To help with this issue, can you provide a specific list of things that you
: were objecting to at Morpheus' site? This would provide a concrete example
: of the sort of things you are talking about.
: >>>
: Providing a specific list of things that were in violation would only serve
: to fuel the debate even more. There were some obvious infringements, however,
: such as scans of TSR artwork. Our posting of a list of objectionable material
: would only serve to have people ask us the next logical question: "Could you
: please defend each one of these items as it pertains to your
: copyrights/trademarks?"
: Jim Butler
: TSR, Inc.
: *****
So TSR now defend their "right" to shut down a site without an adaquate
explaination? No wonder they fear publicity over this. So ... how can
we best publicise this? :-)
--
Guy Robinson guy....@rx.xerox.com
[implied disclaimer]
The real meaning of Christmas is a Mid-Winter feast.
Dru A Smith
Guy Robinson <guy....@rx.xerox.com> wrote:
>
>So TSR now defend their "right" to shut down a site without an adaquate
>explaination? No wonder they fear publicity over this. So ... how can
>we best publicise this? :-)
Call every competitive gaming magazine and ask if they'd like
an full details about this. Morpheus, especially, should be
giving interviews left and right to White Wolf, et al. Get the
word out!
*ALSO*, put flyers up all over GenCon. TSR will try to rip them
down if they aren't 'approved', but an inundation of them should
still get the point across. Something like:
TSR BULLIES ITS PLAYERS!!!
- <details>
I won't be there this year, so those of you who are going ought
to try it.
Bruce Pierpont
> Sum...@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov (David P. Summers) wrote:
>
>Regarding a response he got from TSRJim (Jim Butler) about what material,
>exactly, was at the Morpheus site, which said:
>
>>>>>
>>were objecting to at Morpheus' site? This would provide a concrete example
>>of the sort of things you are talking about.
>>>>>
>>
>>Providing a specific list of things that were in violation would only serve
>>to fuel the debate even more. There were some obvious infringements, however,
>>such as scans of TSR artwork. Our posting of a list of objectionable material
>>would only serve to have people ask us the next logical question: "Could you
>>please defend each one of these items as it pertains to your
>>copyrights/trademarks?"
Essentially this says T$R can NOT defend shutting down Morpheus' site.
Actually someone should tell the teleport SysAdmins that Morpheus can't be
required to shut down, he can only be required to remove the offending
material. T$R can't tell morpheus he's not allowed to have a web page they can
only inform him that he must remove the materials which violate their
copyrights (even if this would leave a blank page it doesn't matter Morpheus
still has a right to publish his page). If T$R DOES NOT tell Morpheus what he
must remove he can leave anything he wants there, if T$R challenges him all he
has to say is, "I was never informed that this material was under any
copyrights". Which is the truth since T$R won't tell him what is and isn't
copyrighted. I don't know how well this would hold in court (I'm not a
lawyer). Incidentally, anyone in New Jersey who can put up a Web page? (I
can't.) If so put the netbooks there. Then when T$R complains use N.J.'s
"Right To Know" to force T$R to tell us what exactly they have copyrights on.
IIRC since its publicly accessible information on a corporations policies and
products they have to tell you. I don't know if this works in other states or
not.
--
____ |] |]
|]ruce | ierpont
TSRJIM
Why? Look, players are out here, and we're gonna write adventures and
spells
and classes and who knows what else using the game mechanics we bought
from
you (you meaning Jim, anybody else at TSR, the company as a whole,
whatever).
We're also gonna want to *share* them with one another. As long as it's
all
original work, and as long as it's all got little disclaimer statements
("Blah, blah, and blah are all trademark TSR, Inc, etc etc") what the hell
is
the problem?
>>>
There's no problem at all. Just release them at official TSR-sanctioned
sites (AOL, GEnie, mpgn.com).
>>>
By doing this, by adopting this ridiculous policy and course of action,
you're
telling me that it's "unauthorized" for me to write an adventure and give
it
to my friends, or to my gaming club, or to anybody who asks for a copy at
a
Con. You're telling fanzines that it's "unauthorized" to publish any
material
making any reference to any TSR product, unless maybe it's a review.
You're
telling us to be as prolific and creative as we like with respect to your
inherently creation-oriented games, just as long as we don't tell anybody
about it.
>>>
No, TSR still encourages gamers to create information for use in their own
campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
The fanzines is an entirely different issue. There are licensing and other
factors involved here. As for an electronic fanzine, we've already got
them going on through AOL, GEnie, and hopefully mpgn.com.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++ Jim Butler, Editor/Designer, TSR, Inc. ++++++++++
=================== Email: TSR...@aol.com==================
++Jim's opinion's only sporadically represent those of TSR+
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
John Novak
>There's no problem at all. Just release them at official TSR-sanctioned
>sites (AOL, GEnie, mpgn.com).
Are you reading all of this particular discussion?
Has it escaped your notice that people are asking you direct
questions-- asking specifically what is under copyright
protection, for instance?
Has it escaped your notice that the longer you avoid these
questions, the more you and your company look like either:
o Idiots who do not understand how copyright laws work (the
more charitable interpretation, IMO) or
o Bullying cowards who use their lawyers to control
everything.
Which is it, Mr. Butler?
>No, TSR still encourages gamers to create information for use in their own
>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
No.
Not until you tell us what you think you have legally protected,
and what you don't.
Are you _capable_ of answering these questions, Mr. Butler?
Do you know the answers and insist on holding out, or are you
just TSR's hired patsy?
--
John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
http://cegt201.bradley.edu/~jsn/index.html
The Humblest Man on the Net
Tim and Stacey Dunn
>2. We won't tell you what these elements are.
>3. The best way to find out is to break this presumed copyright so that
> we can threaten you with a lawsuit.
>TSRJim, did I miss something?
Yes:
4. Even when we threaten you, we won't tell you the specifics under
which you broke the presumed copyright.
Tim
--
Laws of Japanese Animation: [by rshellit|dbr...@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu]
#11 - Law of Inherent Combustability
Everything explodes. Everything.
Amy G. Crittenden
not copyright violation to them--without specifically mentioning
Morpheus's site. They sent me the same form letter Morpheus's has got on
the Page, and suggested I contact their legal dept directly.
I recall someone on this group did that several months ago, and got
stonewalled. But I'll try anyway--I'd love to know what they do and don't
consider infringement of their copyrights (assuming I can get them to tell
me)
John Novak
>I'm not sure what other answer Jim could give and stay out of the
>stewpot.
He can tell us SPECIFICALLY what TSR does and does not consider
protected. He could tell us what parts of the Web site in
question TSR regards as illegal. He could, in effect, answer the
bloody questions, rather than continue to play pasty for TSR's
legal department.
Unless, of course, you consider that to be "In the stewpot" in
which case Jim would have been well advised to keep his nose
clean and his mouth shut-- Usenet is not a media noted for it's
vast restraint nor tolerance in idiots dodging direct questions.
Or unless you assume that he does not have this information, and
knows that he cannot get it.
>Anyway, if you (not just you, Dru, but anyone) challenge TSR's
>representative here to speak for his company, then expect only the above
>sentiment in either a diplomatic (Jim's) or more dogmatic (Repp's)
>form. There is no "off the record" when we can see whether Jim or some
>other spokesperson is actually questioning the stance of his company or
>not.
No one is really asking Jim to tell us (off the record, of course)
that he thinks TSR's position is full of crap. No, what we're
asking for is specifics. What the hell is the point of being "On
the record" if there's nothing worthy of record being said?
> There are also few clarifications he can provide that would amount
>to anything other than an elaboration of the above if Lake Geneva gives
>him nothing new to report.
Then, as representatives of TSR, they're doing their jobs in
taking the heat. I have little respect for the way TSR is
handling this issue, so you'll understand why I have, at this
moment, little respect for TSR's net reps, official or
unofficial.
This can end, as I see it, in one of the following ways:
o TSR finally releases some specifics
o The universe dies of heat death without anyone ever
having seen a TSR specific-- in which case the assumption is, TSR
_has_ no specifics, or
o TSR admits flat out that it's standing on a leaky raft in
the North Atlantic.
>Rail against the Crown, not against the advisor who occasionally must
>serve as messenger. Jim has proven his worth as a designer and
>commentator, a feat his predecessor failed to pull off, but he is still a
>"company man" and has to act like one in his own best interest.
The other alternative, if Jim wants to avoid heat on a personal
level, is to just pipe down and let others take the heat.
I did not search out Jim, nor any other TSR personnel in this
discussion. Jim presented himself to us. Jim opened his mouth.
Jim stuck his nose in the discussion, and if he hasn't got the
information we require, that's his tough luck.
But I'm not going to relent just because Jim is a company man.
_I'd_ be impressed if Jim had the guts to pull the Usenet
equivalent of a shrug, and say, "Hey, sorry, I just don't have
that information. I'll be quiet now." But he hasn't done that.
He hasn't even taken the semi-honourable (and long-standing
Usenet tradition) of slinking out the back door and laying low
for a month or so.
No, he keeps on pluggin' along, and so long as he puts himself in
the harsh limelight that is Usenet, people will scrutinize him
for all he's worth. Live with it.
Morpheus
>Providing a specific list of things that were in violation would only
>serve to fuel the debate even more. There were some obvious
>infringements, however, such as scans of TSR artwork. Our posting of a
>list of objectionable material would only serve to have people ask us
>the next logical question: "Could you please defend each one of these
>items as it pertains to your copyrights/trademarks?"
>
>TSR, Inc.
>*****
>
>rights. I didn't inquire if they would still have objections without
>that artwork or what those objections would be since they didn't seem
>inclined to say...
I do apologize about the .gif, I FTP'd it from a site (that I can't
remember at the moment) I'd like to mention to everyone though
that TSR DID send me a letter regarding my site, and nowhere mentioned
was the .gif. And had I known it was copywritten I would have removed
it immediately (as I did Ivid the Undying).I think as legal issues become more and more important on the net TSR has some explaining to do.
Fact is this TSR DOES use legal bullying tactics, I've seen them first
hand, and so has my provider. What TSR DOESN'T do is explain their
viewpoints from a legal standpoint.
For any TSR people reading this I reccomend you have someone from your
legal department post to the propper lists explaining why from their
point of view I can't create my own monster/spell/npc or whatever and
freely distribute it, as long as I include trademark disclaimers in
the file.
Also I question where you obtained your files at MPGN and whether or
not the license placed on many of the files truly has the authors
permission to do so. Rumor has it that many files were obtained from
the old greyhawk site, and your disclaimer was attached to the file
with no permission at all. When I asked Rob Repp about this he
dodged the question by telling me (not quoting because this was weeks
ago) that it was none of my business.
I think that after enforcing a policy such as TSR's, the company
OWES us an explanation of what they feel is copyrighted and what
types of materials violate it. Not only this but backed up with
quotes from the laws, somethig we can reasearch ourselves. Read
the debates, laws are quoted all the time, on the gamers side,
but I have never seen anyone, especially TSR quote any laws that
back up their net policy.
Until I have an answer I will consider materials that
contain the propper trademark disclaimers, and are not copies of
actual TSR published material free to distribute on the internet
and anywhere else for that matter. And this is what I will
encourage people to do.
- Morpheus
|\/|___ ___ ___ __ ___ morp...@teleport.com
| || || _/|__||__||_ | ||___ "Well my name is MCA and I got
| ||__|| \| | ||_ |__| ___| a license to kill..."
http://www.teleport.com/~morpheus/index.html
Neale Davidson
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>kev...@chopin.udel.edu (Kevin L Seachrist) writes:
>
>He can tell us SPECIFICALLY what TSR does and does not consider
>protected. He could tell us what parts of the Web site in
>question TSR regards as illegal. He could, in effect, answer the
>bloody questions, rather than continue to play pasty for TSR's
>legal department.
>
>Unless, of course, you consider that to be "In the stewpot" in
>which case Jim would have been well advised to keep his nose
>clean and his mouth shut-- Usenet is not a media noted for it's
>vast restraint nor tolerance in idiots dodging direct questions.
Honestly now. The official policy has been posted and reposted
many many times. It's no different from what Marvel Comics, DC,
and other companies use. It IS TSR's right to protect the
characters and setting they create.
Besides, from reading these posts, it would be usual that he
would answer any questions in which he is called 'patsy',
'idiot' and other assorted terms. Try asking your questions
maturly sometime. Better yet, give the TSR legal department
a call on the phone. I did. They were very helpful.
>No one is really asking Jim to tell us (off the record, of course)
>that he thinks TSR's position is full of crap. No, what we're
>asking for is specifics. What the hell is the point of being "On
>the record" if there's nothing worthy of record being said?
Actually, stuff has been said 'off the record', immediately followed
by direct posts of private email to the internet! Can you blame him
for not giving 'off the record' posts?
>Then, as representatives of TSR, they're doing their jobs in
>taking the heat. I have little respect for the way TSR is
>handling this issue, so you'll understand why I have, at this
>moment, little respect for TSR's net reps, official or
>unofficial.
And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
their paychecks.
>This can end, as I see it, in one of the following ways:
>
>o TSR finally releases some specifics
>o The universe dies of heat death without anyone ever
>having seen a TSR specific-- in which case the assumption is, TSR
>_has_ no specifics, or
>o TSR admits flat out that it's standing on a leaky raft in
>the North Atlantic.
TSR has full backing of the US Legal Department.
>But I'm not going to relent just because Jim is a company man.
>_I'd_ be impressed if Jim had the guts to pull the Usenet
>equivalent of a shrug, and say, "Hey, sorry, I just don't have
>that information. I'll be quiet now." But he hasn't done that.
>He hasn't even taken the semi-honourable (and long-standing
>Usenet tradition) of slinking out the back door and laying low
>for a month or so.
>
>No, he keeps on pluggin' along, and so long as he puts himself in
>the harsh limelight that is Usenet, people will scrutinize him
>for all he's worth. Live with it.
>
Yes, and Rush has a right to be a hole as well. That doesn't make
him a very good person or even mildly agreeable. Like you, who
obviously hates a company for no real reason except that your
little playpen (the internet) has FINALLY stepped over its own
borders and caught to big-boys attention.
NealeD
Kevin L Seachrist
Dru A Smith <drus...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <3u5qlu$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, TSRJIM <tsr...@aol.com> wrote:
TSRJim wrote:
>>
>>No, TSR still encourages gamers to create information for use in their own
>>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
>
And Dru countered:
> Jim, you're dangerously approaching "Rob Repp-ism". This is the
>same tired rhetoric we heard from him. I would respectfully ask you
>to explain why this is necessary.
> And a non-Rob Repp-ish answer would avoid the following:
> "Ask the legal department yourself"
> "Because any thing you create which is for AD&D will violate
> our copyrights/trademarks/etc" (especially if we never see a list
> of those copyrights, etc)
> "Because that's the way it is"
>
> Of course, you could pass the buck to your new online rep (Sean Reynolds?),
>but I'd hate to see the buck go further than that.
>
> Dru Smith
I'm not sure what other answer Jim could give and stay out of the
stewpot. This is not to say of course that a policy of "be as free with
your ideas as you wish so long as we are your sole (soul?) broker" is
anything but a perversion of the original creative spirit of the game,
It most certainly is, and reflects that TSR hasn't learned all that much
about its Net customers since its presence on e-space was first felt.
Anyway, if you (not just you, Dru, but anyone) challenge TSR's
representative here to speak for his company, then expect only the above
sentiment in either a diplomatic (Jim's) or more dogmatic (Repp's)
form. There is no "off the record" when we can see whether Jim or some
other spokesperson is actually questioning the stance of his company or
not. There are also few clarifications he can provide that would amount
to anything other than an elaboration of the above if Lake Geneva gives
him nothing new to report.
My advise to those who appreciate Jim's presence and comments here is not to
directly solicit his perspective on the unwinnable, volatile
"legal" debates; or else accept the constraints he faces in entering
such discussions (and I imagine he is required to do so) and appreciate the
workarounds he has demonstrated from time to time, as well as his
friendly insights generally.
Rail against the Crown, not against the advisor who occasionally must
serve as messenger. Jim has proven his worth as a designer and
commentator, a feat his predecessor failed to pull off, but he is still a
"company man" and has to act like one in his own best interest.
Cheers,
Dragonshadow
kev...@brahms.udel.edu
--
.
TSRJIM
I won't comment on the legal copyright issues, enough people are arguing
about those already, but as it stands the TSR net policy is limiting
exchange of gaming information to a very small subset of the world's
gaming population. Even just allowing mirror sites of mpgn would open
things up a bit.
>>>
As I stated in an earlier post today, TSR is looking at some other sites,
including the possibility of opening up one ourselves.
WinningerR
Has it escaped your notice that people are asking you direct
questions-- asking specifically what is under copyright
protection, for instance?<<<
"TSRJim's" tagline identifies him as an editor at TSR. Do you really think
an editor has the authority (much less the knowledge and experience) to
answer these questions?
WinningerR
states
that by publishing a personal work in the only "authorized" forum, the
author
can never re-publish or distribute the work again, without the permission
of
TSR! I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, unreasonable, and wholly
unnecessary,
from both a legal and an ethical standpoint. <<<
It's also ALREADY the law regardless of whether or not you place the
disclaimer on your material. Material derived from TSR's copyrighted
material cannot be distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
Black Gate
> It's also ALREADY the law regardless of whether or not you place the
> disclaimer on your material. Material derived from TSR's copyrighted
> material cannot be distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
That's not entirely true, Ray. It depends on just how *much* of the work derives from TSR's previous work, and on TSR's ownership
of the work. Anyone can write anything they want about elves, dwarves, & halflings: TSR doesn't own these things, they're public
domain. Using the mechanics from AD&D may or may not infringe, depending on just how much of it you regurgitate. Simply
referencing them does not (e.g., Joe Blow is a 3rd level Landscaper with a +2 Weedwacker): there's a solid doctrine of "works of
utility" in play there. The settings & characters used in TSR's campaign source material is only protectable in the case that said
elements are *fully developed*. If you wrote an adventure based in the Dark Sun setting, complete with defilers, place names like
Athas, etc. then you're infringing. Writing an adventure set in your own made-up setting of Voratia, but using stats resembling DND's
to describe the characters, is allowable (as long as you don't copy TSR's work in the process -- an exact copy of their character
format would be an infringement). Using a definite TSR property (like whatever they call demons & devils nowadays) is a no-no.
And obviously, scanning their artwork and casting it to the net.wind is a definite no-no.
BBlackmoor
John Novak
When you quote material, put an attirbution line to go with it,
just like everyone else does.
I said:
>>>>Are you reading all of this particular discussion?
>Has it escaped your notice that people are asking you direct
>questions-- asking specifically what is under copyright
>protection, for instance?<<<
WinningerR said:
>"TSRJim's" tagline identifies him as an editor at TSR. Do you really think
>an editor has the authority (much less the knowledge and experience) to
>answer these questions?
And I reply that, if Jim doesn't have the authority, knowledge,
or experience to answer these questions, or the simple gumption
to ask TSR's legal department for a more clear statement of what
is and isn't considered an infringement, then he serves no
purpose in this discussion other than to annoy, distract, and
obfuscate.
Matuse
>>>>
>By doing this, by adopting this ridiculous policy and course of action,
>you're
>telling me that it's "unauthorized" for me to write an adventure and give
>it
>to my friends, or to my gaming club, or to anybody who asks for a copy at
>a
>Con. You're telling fanzines that it's "unauthorized" to publish any
>material
>making any reference to any TSR product, unless maybe it's a review.
>You're
>telling us to be as prolific and creative as we like with respect to your
>inherently creation-oriented games, just as long as we don't tell anybody
>about it.
>>>>
>
>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
Why? If the information goes out anyway, what is wrong with it being
distributed from anywhere? Control over copyright/trademark infringement?
Ok, have someone who goes through such things and says "X is an
infringement, please remove it", and then let anyone distribute it as
they like.
If I wrote up a module, photocopied it, and passed it out to 2 hundred
people (which I could easily do), TSR could do nothing to stop me...but if
I put it on an FTP site, it suddenly becomes illegal...error, error, error.
John Novak
>Honestly now. The official policy has been posted and reposted
>many many times. It's no different from what Marvel Comics, DC,
>and other companies use. It IS TSR's right to protect the
>characters and setting they create.
No one here is disputing their right to protect their characters
and settings. What is being disputed is TSR's general tactic of
trying to control all printed and published references to
anything concerning a TSR game. What is being disputed is TSR's
absolute refusal to come forth and provide a reasonable list of
what is and isn't protected.
I'm not even asking for a comprehensive list of _everything_ they
consider protected-- that would probably be rather more
comprehensive than I'd care to read. But thus far, in the
incident with Morpheus' Web site, they have done nothing but
demand that the entire page be shut down, rather than
communicating to Morpheus or his providers exactly what portions
of those pages are violations or infringements, that those
infringements might be removed.
"All of it," is not a sufficient answer.
And as for the comics companies, they don't concern me.
I don't happen to have a pocketbook large enough to keep up with
comic books, and I haven't seen DC nor Marvel throwing their
weight around in quite this way.
This is not about comic book companies, this is about TSR.
>Besides, from reading these posts, it would be usual that he
>would answer any questions in which he is called 'patsy',
>'idiot' and other assorted terms. Try asking your questions
>maturly sometime. Better yet, give the TSR legal department
>a call on the phone. I did. They were very helpful.
I've yet to see anything helpful from TSR in this forum.
And I _don't_ like being given a runaround or consecutive
non-answers to my questions.
And in case it has escaped notice, I haven't been one of the
people running around encouraging others to do stupid things,
like scan TSR works directly into their machines and publish
_those_ on Web pages. That, obviously, would be a copyright
violation. In fact, I have publicly (in this forum) and
privately (through e-mail) castigated people for proposing these
hair-brained schemes.
This does _not_ change the fact that TSR is giving this forum a
royal run-around, the fact that they are very carefully couching
their legal terms to imply that their game mechanics are
protected under copyright, the fact that their legal terms are
bullying and uninformative, or the fact that Jim, whether through
his own design, the design of the TSR legal department, or some
cause I am unable to fathom has not been helpful at all.
>>No one is really asking Jim to tell us (off the record, of course)
>>that he thinks TSR's position is full of crap. No, what we're
>>asking for is specifics. What the hell is the point of being "On
>>the record" if there's nothing worthy of record being said?
>Actually, stuff has been said 'off the record', immediately followed
>by direct posts of private email to the internet! Can you blame him
>for not giving 'off the record' posts?
No, I can't.
Did you bother to read all of what you quoted?
I said, "No one is really asking Jim..."
The point is that nothing _on_ the record has been worth
recording. None of it!
>And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
>steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>their paychecks.
Go back and read all of my contributions in this thread, _then_
make me that comment. Show me one specific instance-- exactly
one-- where I encourage the theft of copyrighted works. You
won't find any. What you will find is me castigating and
excoriating people like "Rennie" who propose just exactly that.
You might want to determine the position of the person you're
arguing against, rather than making one up on the spot.
You will also find me denigrating TSR for their tactics of
claiming copyright violation right and left with what seems to
many of us to be a dubious, shoddy understanding of what can and
cannot be copyrighted, and you will find me making repeated calls
for something more specific than that which they've already provided.
>Yes, and Rush has a right to be a hole as well. That doesn't make
>him a very good person or even mildly agreeable. Like you, who
>obviously hates a company for no real reason except that your
>little playpen (the internet) has FINALLY stepped over its own
>borders and caught to big-boys attention.
You have no idea why I'm angry at TSR right now, do you?
I have no great love for TSR. I haven't liked their material for
years, with the possible exception of their early Forgotten
Realms material. I have no great hatred for TSR either, but I
will not let their posturing pass without vocal challenge.
Matuse
>In article <3u7mji$a...@cegt201.bradley.edu>,
>John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>Honestly now. The official policy has been posted and reposted
>many many times. It's no different from what Marvel Comics, DC,
>and other companies use. It IS TSR's right to protect the
>characters and setting they create.
Please tell me which setting or characters are not being protected
in say...the complete netbook of sex. Since there are no names or places
mentioned at any point (aside from maybe 1 or 2 wholely-fabricated names
for magic items), what trademark or copyright is being infringed upon?
>>Then, as representatives of TSR, they're doing their jobs in
>>taking the heat. I have little respect for the way TSR is
>>handling this issue, so you'll understand why I have, at this
>>moment, little respect for TSR's net reps, official or
>>unofficial.
>
>And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
>steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>their paychecks.
How about the "netters" who do not violate the law, have nothing to do
with copyrighted works, and still tell everyone how bad the company is?
>TSR has full backing of the US Legal Department.
Funny, I've heard of organizations like "The Justice Department" and "The
Attorney General's Office", but never once have I heard of the "US Legal
Department".
>>No, he keeps on pluggin' along, and so long as he puts himself in
>>the harsh limelight that is Usenet, people will scrutinize him
>>for all he's worth. Live with it.
>>
>
>Yes, and Rush has a right to be a hole as well. That doesn't make
>him a very good person or even mildly agreeable. Like you, who
>obviously hates a company for no real reason except that your
>little playpen (the internet) has FINALLY stepped over its own
>borders and caught to big-boys attention.
Again, your screaming fits of horrifying ignorance are an ugly thing to see.
Rob Dean
>It's also ALREADY the law regardless of whether or not you place the
>disclaimer on your material. Material derived from TSR's copyrighted
>material cannot be distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
OK. I'll buy that, for the moment. Now, can someone give us a pointer
to a government web or ftp site where we can download some sort of legal
definition of "derived from"?
Rob Dean
rob...@access.digex.net
Ken Arromdee
WinningerR <winni...@aol.com> wrote:
>But more to the point is that disclaimer you require. It explicitly
>states
>that by publishing a personal work in the only "authorized" forum, the
>author
>can never re-publish or distribute the work again, without the permission
>of
>TSR! I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, unreasonable, and wholly
>unnecessary,
>from both a legal and an ethical standpoint. <<<
>disclaimer on your material. Material derived from TSR's copyrighted
>material cannot be distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
Material which fits the legal definition of "derivative work" cannot be
distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
Material which fits a more common definition of "derivative work" can.
Furthermore, the disclaimer says that if it is derived from TSR's works _or_
uses TSR trademarks, it may not be distributed. To satisfy an "or", you only
need to satisfy one of the two conditions, so if it is not derived from TSR's
works, but it does use TSR's trademarks, then TSR is still claiming rights
over it.
--
Ken Arromdee (email: arro...@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu)
Romana: "But he had such an honest face!"
Doctor: "Romana! You can't be a successful thief with a _dis_honest face!"
Neale Davidson
>>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
>
>Why? If the information goes out anyway, what is wrong with it being
>distributed from anywhere? Control over copyright/trademark infringement?
This allows the TSR net-reps to screen out things which TSR does not want
to be held responsible for, such as 'Demon PCs' and articles on how to
be evil, and other such.
>Ok, have someone who goes through such things and says "X is an
>infringement, please remove it", and then let anyone distribute it as
>they like.
>
>If I wrote up a module, photocopied it, and passed it out to 2 hundred
>people (which I could easily do), TSR could do nothing to stop me...but if
>I put it on an FTP site, it suddenly becomes illegal...error, error, error.
>
It would be illegal to hand distribute it to 200 people, or even a few,
if they were not directly involved in your game sessions. Period. The means
of distribution is irrevalent. (Ask Mayfair about this one!)
NealeD
WinningerR
your ideas as you wish so long as we are your sole (soul?) broker" is
anything but a perversion of the original creative spirit of the game, <<<
It is and it isn't. Back in the old days, dozens of people published their
"house rules" and homegrown additions for D&D and virtually every one of
them avoided TSR's proprietary settings (Greyhawk and Blackmoor) and
changed around the names of mechanics to avoid these sorts of problems.
If TSR more concretely stated their policy on the "game mechanics" portion
of their statement, I think everything would be fair and satisfactory.
Neale Davidson
John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>
>>Honestly now. The official policy has been posted and reposted
>>many many times. It's no different from what Marvel Comics, DC,
>>and other companies use. It IS TSR's right to protect the
>>characters and setting they create.
>
>No one here is disputing their right to protect their characters
>and settings. What is being disputed is TSR's general tactic of
>trying to control all printed and published references to
>anything concerning a TSR game. What is being disputed is TSR's
>absolute refusal to come forth and provide a reasonable list of
>what is and isn't protected.
>
>I'm not even asking for a comprehensive list of _everything_ they
>consider protected-- that would probably be rather more
>comprehensive than I'd care to read. But thus far, in the
>incident with Morpheus' Web site, they have done nothing but
>demand that the entire page be shut down, rather than
>communicating to Morpheus or his providers exactly what portions
>of those pages are violations or infringements, that those
>infringements might be removed.
Characters and represnetations which clearly denote TSR product
material. Again, this is right out of standard copyright law.
If you used Waterdeep for a book, and it was recognizable as
the Waterdeep from the Forgotten Realms, you are in violation
of copyright.
And yes, any created entity by TSR is indeed protected by this.
This includes Raistlin, WaterDeep, Dragonlance, The Forgotten
Realms, AD&D mechanics, et cetera. If it's recognizble as a TSR
derivitive, it is a copyright violation. That's the law. There
is no list of words which are copyrighted. It's how they are
used.
>
>"All of it," is not a sufficient answer.
From a legal standpoint, it is.
>
>And as for the comics companies, they don't concern me.
>I don't happen to have a pocketbook large enough to keep up with
>comic books, and I haven't seen DC nor Marvel throwing their
>weight around in quite this way.
>
>This is not about comic book companies, this is about TSR.
Wrong, this is about copyright. The same laws apply.
>
>>Besides, from reading these posts, it would be usual that he
>>would answer any questions in which he is called 'patsy',
>>'idiot' and other assorted terms. Try asking your questions
>>maturly sometime. Better yet, give the TSR legal department
>>a call on the phone. I did. They were very helpful.
>
>I've yet to see anything helpful from TSR in this forum.
>And I _don't_ like being given a runaround or consecutive
>non-answers to my questions.
Which is to say that you don't actually want to go LOOKING
for the answers to your questions. It took me five minutes
and two phone calls (one to Rob Repp, at the time, who
referred me to legal.)
>And in case it has escaped notice, I haven't been one of the
>people running around encouraging others to do stupid things,
>like scan TSR works directly into their machines and publish
>_those_ on Web pages. That, obviously, would be a copyright
>violation. In fact, I have publicly (in this forum) and
>privately (through e-mail) castigated people for proposing these
>hair-brained schemes.
I didn't cite you in particular as commiting any crimes. I
DID however try to point out that your complaint is misplaced.
>This does _not_ change the fact that TSR is giving this forum a
>royal run-around, the fact that they are very carefully couching
>their legal terms to imply that their game mechanics are
>protected under copyright, the fact that their legal terms are
>bullying and uninformative, or the fact that Jim, whether through
>his own design, the design of the TSR legal department, or some
>cause I am unable to fathom has not been helpful at all.
Legal terms are bullying and uninfomrative, in general. Besides,
the atitute the majority of these posts take wouldn't endear me
into being particularly helpful at all!
>
>>>No one is really asking Jim to tell us (off the record, of course)
>>>that he thinks TSR's position is full of crap. No, what we're
>>>asking for is specifics. What the hell is the point of being "On
>>>the record" if there's nothing worthy of record being said?
>
>>Actually, stuff has been said 'off the record', immediately followed
>>by direct posts of private email to the internet! Can you blame him
>>for not giving 'off the record' posts?
>
>No, I can't.
>Did you bother to read all of what you quoted?
>I said, "No one is really asking Jim..."
>The point is that nothing _on_ the record has been worth
>recording. None of it!
Yes I read it. I was illustrating the point of the net's attitude!
Please remember that Jim isn't a part of the legal department at
TSR. Asking him to get legal specifics is like asking the grocer-
sack-boy to describe the meat content reports and then legally
bind the store to it.
>
>>And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
>>steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>>which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>>their paychecks.
>
>Go back and read all of my contributions in this thread, _then_
>make me that comment. Show me one specific instance-- exactly
>one-- where I encourage the theft of copyrighted works. You
>won't find any. What you will find is me castigating and
>excoriating people like "Rennie" who propose just exactly that.
Again, this wasn't gear towards you speicifically, but even you
just admitted that this indeed does happen, often. This material
is then collected in archive sites, often. Is TSR wrong for wanting
to stop this practice?
>
>You might want to determine the position of the person you're
>arguing against, rather than making one up on the spot.
>
>You will also find me denigrating TSR for their tactics of
>claiming copyright violation right and left with what seems to
>many of us to be a dubious, shoddy understanding of what can and
>cannot be copyrighted, and you will find me making repeated calls
>for something more specific than that which they've already provided.
It's not my fault that you do not understand copyright laws.
>
>>Yes, and Rush has a right to be a hole as well. That doesn't make
>>him a very good person or even mildly agreeable. Like you, who
>>obviously hates a company for no real reason except that your
>>little playpen (the internet) has FINALLY stepped over its own
>>borders and caught to big-boys attention.
>
>You have no idea why I'm angry at TSR right now, do you?
>I have no great love for TSR. I haven't liked their material for
>years, with the possible exception of their early Forgotten
>Realms material. I have no great hatred for TSR either, but I
>will not let their posturing pass without vocal challenge.
No, reading your post, and those of others, STRONGLY indicates
to me that you are a typical anti-TSR bigot! You hate the company
for whatever reason and automatically take a defensive stance against
them when they try to run their business.
How much different would it have been if a group of the netters
said 'We understand your concerns about copyright infringement
on the internet, and there is a problem. Some possible steps to
remedy this situation include...'
But no, this never happened. What DID happen was that when news
got out that TSR was going on-line with AOL, several people started
to deliberately and defiantly place TSR property on internet sites,
to give this copyrighted work away for free. To quote someone
'This material is to advance our creative works, therefore, it
should be made free and public to everyone.' The material was a
fully scanned copy of the 2nd edition PHB and DMG. TSR then took
it upon themselves to try to regulate the situation, with little
help from, and lots of hatred from, the lovely internet.
This, of course, got netters really upset. The netters either
boycotted TSR or started performing more illegal copying.
This is what I refer to, and this is the argument I make. I am
very tired when TSR takes so much flak for what they do, simply
because they are a company which does make money, and the netters,
who mostly get their access for free from schools (which isn't
really free, mind you), break the law in the name of some
greater good which they cannot fathom.
NealeD
Neale Davidson
>Please tell me which setting or characters are not being protected
>in say...the complete netbook of sex. Since there are no names or places
>mentioned at any point (aside from maybe 1 or 2 wholely-fabricated names
>for magic items), what trademark or copyright is being infringed upon?
By attaching the AD&D or TSR name to it, they may be placed at risk for
being legally responsible for such work. Remember that TSR was sued on
several occiasion for material that Mayfair put out on demons and what
Palladium did for magic.
>>And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
>>steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>>which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>>their paychecks.
>
>How about the "netters" who do not violate the law, have nothing to do
>with copyrighted works, and still tell everyone how bad the company is?
The net is full of people that simply hate companies, government,
schools, system administration, and game masters.
>>TSR has full backing of the US Legal Department.
>
>Funny, I've heard of organizations like "The Justice Department" and "The
>Attorney General's Office", but never once have I heard of the "US Legal
>Department".
Sould I have my attorney make replies from now on, child? Argue semantics
all you want!
>Again, your screaming fits of horrifying ignorance are an ugly thing to see.
I'm not the one looking at fines and jail-time for his point of view on
this! All I'm saying that it doesn't seem very hard to deal with any of
these companies if you just use your damn phone!
NealeD
John Novak
>Material which fits the legal definition of "derivative work" cannot be
>distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
>Material which fits a more common definition of "derivative work" can.
Could someone please explain the difference to me, or better yet,
provide a source (hopefully on-line and reliable) which will
explain the difference?
TSRJIM
He can tell us SPECIFICALLY what TSR does and does not consider
protected. He could tell us what parts of the Web site in
question TSR regards as illegal. He could, in effect, answer the
bloody questions, rather than continue to play pasty for TSR's
legal department.
>>>
We've had this discussion countless times; if black & white answers were
available, we'd have no need of lawyers or courts.
As to what items are in violation at Morpheus's site, you can log on their
now and take a look at "The Death of Sturm" artwork by Larry Elmore that
is prominently displayed on his RPG homepage. There were other violations
there as well, but they appear to have been removed.
It's hard to provide black & white answers in a gray world...
TSR Steve
"So ... how can we best publicise this? :-)"
By breaching nettiquet and posting e-mail communications in the public
newsgroups?
Steve Miller
TSR, Inc.
Neale Davidson
>products? On no netbook or whatever does it say that the enclosed
>material was written or endorsed by TSR...in fact, most go out of their
>way to say that TSR has nothing to do with the contents.
>
>If you looked at it through your viewpoint, every game written after D&D
>that TSR didn't like could be sued for this, and thats nonsense.
Negative. Most of the net material is SPECIFCALLY related to AD&D. Others
make a loose connection with AD&D in particular, which reflects on TSR. In
general, if a disclaimer saying 'company x did not endorse this' then it's
probably a copyright infringement.
>Wrong. Several times the netreps have said that making your own material
>and passing it out is perfectly fine (how could you play the game
>if this was not true?)...only it suddenly becomes not-fine when it goes
>onto the internet for reasons unknown. Logic error, danger will robinson,
>danger, danger!
Start passing out those modules now! :) Really, though, legally, means of
distribution usually has no bearing on copyright. TSR did give, in the PHB
and DMG, a limited license to give material to those involved in the game
with you. Generally, if you're handing out to people, you're playing with
them. This isn't always true, but it's easier to say 'go ahead and give
it to your friends' then what I said here.
NealeD
Neale Davidson
>posted that story here on the DnD group, I'd get all sorts of legal
>hate-mail from TSRs law jockeys, and thats just not right.
Would you? There are newsgroups dedicated to fantasy fiction, and the net
law jockeys aren't harping there. It would depend on what else the story
contained, obviously. If he was Fleeblenoodle of Cormyr in the Dales,
friend to Eliminster... you get the idea...
>>>"All of it," is not a sufficient answer.
>>
>>From a legal standpoint, it is.
>
>Oh, well, simple then: Any post which contains any words which I have
>written is copyrighted by me, and anyone using those words (in a quote or
>otherwise) without my express permission will be subject to legal penalties.
Words, by themselves, cannot be copyrighted. Meaning is copyrighted. Otherwise,
you could simply translate any book to a foriegn lingo and call it a new work!
>That is TSR's general standpoint on the issue.
You've missed the point of copyright.
>
>If its so easy to get, then it should be equally easy for a netrep to
>post this, neh? The fact that none have is quite telling indeed. My guess
>is that the legal department was either lying out its ass to you, or you
>phrased the problem incorrectly...asking them if it was ok to use clear
>TSR trademarks (like FR/DS/Drizz't/etc) would get an obvious answer...try
>asking about the net book of sex.
Like I said before, a netrep isn't a legal representative. At best, he's
a mediator. Plus, statements made on the internet are considered VERBAL
unless they are archived. The copyright information is actually available
on their net sites... (Ironic, isn't it?)
As for the net book of sex, it was more that the TSR and AD&D name was
included in it often, associating the company with something that they
did not want associated with. They had a right to stomp on it, like it
or not.
>practictioners :)), the problem comes when TSR tries to throw its muscle
>around on files that have -*0*- trademarks or copyrights in them, but are
>made for play in the D&D game. If it was truly illegal to do this, then
>all DMs in the world would be forced to buy TSR approved modules to run
>*every single adventure* because creating their own would violate this
>ruling.
Negative. GM's are encouraged to create material, it's the distribution
which causes problems.
>>How much different would it have been if a group of the netters
>>said 'We understand your concerns about copyright infringement
>>on the internet, and there is a problem. Some possible steps to
>>remedy this situation include...'
>
>And gosh almighty: THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR WELL OVER A YEAR NOW. Can you
>blame people for getting upset at the continual stonewalling? Several
>times in just hte last couple days people have made perfectly reasonable
>and polite requests for a definitive set of guidlines...but since TSR is
>on legal ground resembling swiss cheese, nothing of the sort has come forth,
>but they still enjoy throwing their legal muscle around the net to stop
>perfectly legal activity that they don't approve of.
No, people are asking for a list of things which are copyrighted, which
CAN NOT BE DONE with copyright law. You cannot copyright a word. That
is why you're not getting a definitive list. The line that I said, where
you are directly using TSR work in your own, is the violation. Like legal
does, use your own best judgement.
>You are in the wrong arguement. Its lovely that TSR prevents people from
>scanning and posting copies of pages from their books...i'm all for that...
>but thats not what they are doing.
Actually, it is, but the argument has gone long past that. Sure, TSR came
on like a lot of bricks, but that's what legal ALWAYS does. Talk to them
in person, they're a lot more helpful and nicer when there's a voice to
connect.
NealeD
Neale Davidson
>(in paraphrased terms, I don't have a copy of the netbook to check) THIS
>HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TSR, AND IF YOU THINK IT DOES, YOU ARE MAD!
I haven't seen the net book, and I am not TSR. I can't say what they
found offensive. From your description, however, I suspect that AD&D
rules were used in a satire.
>>The net is full of people that simply hate companies, government,
>>schools, system administration, and game masters.
>
>And yet the concept that maybe there is a legitamite greivance here
>totally escapes you...amazing.
There are legitimate worries here. But it escapes you that some of the
worries you have are unwarranted.
>First, I am not you child, nor would I particularly wish to be.
Well, as the saying goes... STOP ACTING LIKE ONE!
>And coming from someone who claims to know so much about the law, I think
>the fact that you name fictitious government agencies in your arguements
>negates any "semantics" defense.
I wasn't referring to an agency in particular, jsut the fact that US law
supports their case. As for my knowledge on these laws, I used a novel
invention called a book.
>>>Again, your screaming fits of horrifying ignorance are an ugly thing to see.
You act so insulted when I call you a child. After this line, I can't
really believe you are anything more.
>>All I'm saying that it doesn't seem very hard to deal with any of
>>these companies if you just use your damn phone!
>
>Why should we bother when they have *3* netreps here to answer our
>questions for us? Course, in the well-over-a-year that this arguement has
>been going, they haven't said one concrete word on the subject...maybe
>talking to them in person (by voice) will actually make them say something.
MAYBE because the net-reps are not the legal deapartment.
NealeD
John Menichelli
Task Force Games/Amarillo Design Bureau design/publish Star Fleet
Battles. They are *very* protective of their copyright. However, there is
a company (I forget the name off-hand) publishing Star Fleet Battles
supplements. Each supplement booklet has a disclaimer on the front saying
that the material is not authorized by TFG/ADB. How are they able to do
this (considering TFG/ADB get their rights from Paramount), while T$R
gets all hinky when others do the same?
John
meni...@pixi.com
Brent Stroh
>In article <DBsGE...@eskimo.com>, Berg <be...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>Neale Davidson (pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>>
>All TSR characters, charater names, spell names, magical item names,
>unique place locations, and the distinct likenesses thereof are
>trademarks owneder by TSR Inc. Random House and its affliliate
>companies have made worldwide dsitribution rights in the book
>trade for English language products of TSR, INC. Distributed to the
>toy and hobby trade by regional distirbutors. Distributed to the
>book and hobby trade in the United Kingdom by TSR Ltd. This
>work is protected under the copyright laws of the United States
>of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the material
>or art work presented herein is prohibited by law without the
>express written permission of TSR, Inc.
>(c)1995 TSR, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
>From Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 3, (c)1995.
>What part of this do you not understand?
I'd have to say the part that isn't mentioned, wherein TSR is claiming
race names (Drow, etc), abilities (STR, INT), and game mechanic
concepts (Casting Time, Duration) to be covered under copyright, as
well as the items listed. Creatures and races that existed in legend
and culture before TSR was even imagined are most likely not going to
be classified as a TSR invention. Game rules & mechanics are
excluded, also. How many books contain the rules for poker? The
majority of these books are copyrighted, but the individual publishers
aren't out suing each other. Guess why! The organization and
presentation of the rules can be copyrighted. The concept behind them
cannot.
I don't recall anyone here having any argument that TSR has rights to
the items they've created - if I chose to pull out all the Bigby
related spells from a number of works, and post this compilation to
the net, I should be (rightly) asked to remove the material. It isn't
mine to post.
On the other hand, if I invent JimBob's Flash of Destruction, and I
present this spell in the standard format, this should not be an
issue. I haven't copied or paraphrased TSR material; I've provided
completely new information in a customary format. As has been
discussed, a copyright doesn't cover a concept; a copyright covers the
execution of a concept.
TSR is within their bounds to go after any legitimate infringement -
the idiot who tried to scan and post the Hommlet adventure comes to
mind. Last I looked, however, TSR didn't have a Net Book of Sex, and
had never addressed the ideas contained in it. Claiming this to be an
infringing copy of something they'd developed is a bit silly.
Morpheus
>It's also ALREADY the law regardless of whether or not you place the
>disclaimer on your material. Material derived from TSR's copyrighted
I read your spew, and I read your spew.
Yet more spew comes forth... Are you T$R's little lap dog?
Read my text.. not only is this the issue I protest....
this is the issue the debate is over. For most of
us "Just because TSR says so" is bullshit.
So either come up with a ligitimate argument or shut
up already. You say its against the law.. lets see
some QUOTES, with refernces to them so we can all look
them up ourselves.
- Morph
Matuse
>>>No, TSR still encourages gamers to create information for use in their own
>>>campaigns. If you want to release this information to the world at-large,
>>>simply distribute it via one of the above approved sites.
>>
>>Why? If the information goes out anyway, what is wrong with it being
>>distributed from anywhere? Control over copyright/trademark infringement?
>
>This allows the TSR net-reps to screen out things which TSR does not want
>to be held responsible for, such as 'Demon PCs' and articles on how to
>be evil, and other such.
Why should TSR care about things which are not affiliated with their
products? On no netbook or whatever does it say that the enclosed
material was written or endorsed by TSR...in fact, most go out of their
way to say that TSR has nothing to do with the contents.
If you looked at it through your viewpoint, every game written after D&D
that TSR didn't like could be sued for this, and thats nonsense.
>>Ok, have someone who goes through such things and says "X is an
>>infringement, please remove it", and then let anyone distribute it as
>>they like.
>>
>>If I wrote up a module, photocopied it, and passed it out to 2 hundred
>>people (which I could easily do), TSR could do nothing to stop me...but if
>>I put it on an FTP site, it suddenly becomes illegal...error, error, error.
>>
>
>It would be illegal to hand distribute it to 200 people, or even a few,
>if they were not directly involved in your game sessions. Period. The means
>of distribution is irrevalent. (Ask Mayfair about this one!)
Wrong. Several times the netreps have said that making your own material
Matuse
>In article <3u90n0$f...@cegt201.bradley.edu>,
>John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>Characters and represnetations which clearly denote TSR product
>material. Again, this is right out of standard copyright law.
>If you used Waterdeep for a book, and it was recognizable as
>the Waterdeep from the Forgotten Realms, you are in violation
>of copyright.
>
>And yes, any created entity by TSR is indeed protected by this.
>This includes Raistlin, WaterDeep, Dragonlance, The Forgotten
>Realms, AD&D mechanics, et cetera. If it's recognizble as a TSR
>derivitive, it is a copyright violation. That's the law. There
>is no list of words which are copyrighted. It's how they are
>used.
Yes, these are obvious...I won't go writing a story with Drizz't without
permission from TSR...fine fine fine..
But if I write a story about...Fleeblenoodle the Human Warrior, and
posted that story here on the DnD group, I'd get all sorts of legal
hate-mail from TSRs law jockeys, and thats just not right.
>>
>>"All of it," is not a sufficient answer.
>
>From a legal standpoint, it is.
Oh, well, simple then: Any post which contains any words which I have
written is copyrighted by me, and anyone using those words (in a quote or
otherwise) without my express permission will be subject to legal penalties.
That is TSR's general standpoint on the issue.
>>I've yet to see anything helpful from TSR in this forum.
>>And I _don't_ like being given a runaround or consecutive
>>non-answers to my questions.
>
>Which is to say that you don't actually want to go LOOKING
>for the answers to your questions. It took me five minutes
>and two phone calls (one to Rob Repp, at the time, who
>referred me to legal.)
If its so easy to get, then it should be equally easy for a netrep to
post this, neh? The fact that none have is quite telling indeed. My guess
is that the legal department was either lying out its ass to you, or you
phrased the problem incorrectly...asking them if it was ok to use clear
TSR trademarks (like FR/DS/Drizz't/etc) would get an obvious answer...try
asking about the net book of sex.
>>Go back and read all of my contributions in this thread, _then_
>>make me that comment. Show me one specific instance-- exactly
>>one-- where I encourage the theft of copyrighted works. You
>>won't find any. What you will find is me castigating and
>>excoriating people like "Rennie" who propose just exactly that.
>
>Again, this wasn't gear towards you speicifically, but even you
>just admitted that this indeed does happen, often. This material
>is then collected in archive sites, often. Is TSR wrong for wanting
>to stop this practice?
No one has any problem with stopping THAT practice (except possibly the
practictioners :)), the problem comes when TSR tries to throw its muscle
around on files that have -*0*- trademarks or copyrights in them, but are
made for play in the D&D game. If it was truly illegal to do this, then
all DMs in the world would be forced to buy TSR approved modules to run
*every single adventure* because creating their own would violate this
ruling.
>How much different would it have been if a group of the netters
>said 'We understand your concerns about copyright infringement
>on the internet, and there is a problem. Some possible steps to
>remedy this situation include...'
And gosh almighty: THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR WELL OVER A YEAR NOW. Can you
blame people for getting upset at the continual stonewalling? Several
times in just hte last couple days people have made perfectly reasonable
and polite requests for a definitive set of guidlines...but since TSR is
on legal ground resembling swiss cheese, nothing of the sort has come forth,
but they still enjoy throwing their legal muscle around the net to stop
perfectly legal activity that they don't approve of.
>This, of course, got netters really upset. The netters either
>boycotted TSR or started performing more illegal copying.
>
>This is what I refer to, and this is the argument I make. I am
>very tired when TSR takes so much flak for what they do, simply
>because they are a company which does make money, and the netters,
>who mostly get their access for free from schools (which isn't
>really free, mind you), break the law in the name of some
>greater good which they cannot fathom.
You are in the wrong arguement. Its lovely that TSR prevents people from
Matuse
>[Following a reposting of e-mail]
>
>"So ... how can we best publicise this? :-)"
>
>By breaching nettiquet and posting e-mail communications in the public
>newsgroups?
Sounds good to me...maybe start crossposting copies of it to all frp
related groups, that would work a lot better I think.
Matuse
>In article <matuseDB...@netcom.com>, Matuse <mat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>in say...the complete netbook of sex. Since there are no names or places
>>mentioned at any point (aside from maybe 1 or 2 wholely-fabricated names
>>for magic items), what trademark or copyright is being infringed upon?
>
>By attaching the AD&D or TSR name to it, they may be placed at risk for
>being legally responsible for such work. Remember that TSR was sued on
>several occiasion for material that Mayfair put out on demons and what
>Palladium did for magic.
I believe that the netbook of sex has a paragraph at the top with the ledger:
(in paraphrased terms, I don't have a copy of the netbook to check) THIS
HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TSR, AND IF YOU THINK IT DOES, YOU ARE MAD!
>>>And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
>>>steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>>>which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>>>their paychecks.
>>
>>How about the "netters" who do not violate the law, have nothing to do
>>with copyrighted works, and still tell everyone how bad the company is?
>
>The net is full of people that simply hate companies, government,
>schools, system administration, and game masters.
And yet the concept that maybe there is a legitamite greivance here
totally escapes you...amazing.
>>>TSR has full backing of the US Legal Department.
>>
>>Funny, I've heard of organizations like "The Justice Department" and "The
>>Attorney General's Office", but never once have I heard of the "US Legal
>>Department".
>
>Sould I have my attorney make replies from now on, child? Argue semantics
>all you want!
First, I am not you child, nor would I particularly wish to be.
And coming from someone who claims to know so much about the law, I think
the fact that you name fictitious government agencies in your arguements
negates any "semantics" defense.
>>Again, your screaming fits of horrifying ignorance are an ugly thing to see.
>
>I'm not the one looking at fines and jail-time for his point of view on
>this!
Neither am I.
Berg
: But more to the point is that disclaimer you require. It explicitly
: states
: that by publishing a personal work in the only "authorized" forum, the
: author
: can never re-publish or distribute the work again, without the permission
: of
: TSR! I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous, unreasonable, and wholly
: unnecessary,
: from both a legal and an ethical standpoint. <<<
: It's also ALREADY the law regardless of whether or not you place the
: disclaimer on your material. Material derived from TSR's copyrighted
: material cannot be distributed without TSR's consent anyway.
What is copyrighted though? Until they spell out just what is
and is not copyrighted under the law, then how will us laymen know what
we can and cannot publish?
The same goes for trademarks.
Berg
: And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
: steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
: which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
: their paychecks.
nd I have very little respect for people who claim TSR is always
right, even when they are not. If you are so damned sure of yourself,
prove it. What are your references for this? Explain how you come to
the conclusion that, as you implied, all netters are copyright violating
scum who steal food from the mouths of little children.
I have seen numerous netters dig up proofs from lawbooks, court
cases, and so forth that indicate TSR is full of shit on this copyright
issue. I have yet to see TSR list even a single trademark or copyright
in response to a direct question.
Berg
: No, reading your post, and those of others, STRONGLY indicates
: to me that you are a typical anti-TSR bigot! You hate the company
: for whatever reason and automatically take a defensive stance against
: them when they try to run their business.
: How much different would it have been if a group of the netters
: said 'We understand your concerns about copyright infringement
: on the internet, and there is a problem. Some possible steps to
: remedy this situation include...'
: But no, this never happened. What DID happen was that when news
: got out that TSR was going on-line with AOL, several people started
: to deliberately and defiantly place TSR property on internet sites,
: to give this copyrighted work away for free. To quote someone
: 'This material is to advance our creative works, therefore, it
: should be made free and public to everyone.' The material was a
: fully scanned copy of the 2nd edition PHB and DMG. TSR then took
: it upon themselves to try to regulate the situation, with little
: help from, and lots of hatred from, the lovely internet.
: This, of course, got netters really upset. The netters either
: boycotted TSR or started performing more illegal copying.
: This is what I refer to, and this is the argument I make. I am
: very tired when TSR takes so much flak for what they do, simply
: because they are a company which does make money, and the netters,
: who mostly get their access for free from schools (which isn't
: really free, mind you), break the law in the name of some
: greater good which they cannot fathom.
I'm not sure whether to be amazed by your nerve, or stunned by
your ignorance. You consistently imply that most if not all of the
people on the net steal copyrighted material right and left, plagiarize,
distribute scanned copies of the PHB, etc. You also have claimed that
nobody asked TSR politely for a list, that we all just yelled. Not
true. In the beginning, we were outraged, but still quite polite, under
the circumstances. We were at best ignored, and at worst given the
run-around. You claim that anybody who disagrees with TSR's stance is a
'bigot' who hates the company. Do the terms 'freedom of speech',
'slander', and 'libel' mean anything to you?
To my knowledge, very few people have posted illegal copies of
the PHB or other books to the net. I'm fairly active with FTP, and
reading usenet, and generally, anybody who does something like that
(which rarely occurs) is flamed heavily.
Why do you think of a boycott as bad? Do you mean to say that if
I strongly disagree with a company's policies and actions, that I am
required to continue purchasing their products?
You have stated that netters responded to TSR objecting to copies
of the PHB circulating on the net with hatred and little help. Not
true. Most of the furor resulted from widespread shutdowns of FTP sites
carrying modules, house rules, and new spells and monsters by TSR.
TSR gets a lot of flak because they DESERVE a lot of flak. While
I admit that legal terms tend to be a bit heavy-handed, TSR seems to be
putting weights in it's gloves here. To my knowledge, no other
RPG-producing company pursues percieved violators (real violators or more
often peopls who didn't violate anything) to such an extent as TSR does.
One last question. Are YOU a lawyer, NealeD? Do you know all
that you claim to know? Now, don't get insulted by this, but you have
been claiming to possess a great deal of knowledge, and have been highly
insulting to a large number of people. Are you a lawyer, a law student,
or just another layman?
anonymous
>
>In article <3u7mji$a...@cegt201.bradley.edu>,
>TSR has full backing of the US Legal Department.
>
>NealeD
>
You mean the Department of Justice, right.
Brian Trosko
: What is copyrighted though? Until they spell out just what is
: we can and cannot publish?
The actual content of everything that TSR publishes is copyrighted. That
seems simple enough.
The problem arises where TSR feels that it has copyrights over the
mechanics of AD&D. It most certainly does not; game rules and mechanics
can not be copyrighted.
So we run into the following disagreement. If I make a list of spells,
with the format:
Level:x Casting Time:xx Area Of Effect:xx
Save:xx Duration:xx
and not a single spell in the list ever appeared in anything TSR ever
published, have I violated their copyrights?
Most of us say no, since such things as casting time and area of effect
are issues of game mechanics, and such things can't be protected by
copyright. TSR's legal department claims differently. Similarly, if I
were to make a list of characters, and listed such attributes as STR,
DEX, INT, WIS, etc., TSR feels this would be violating their copyrights.
This is ridiculous. First of all, you can't even put a copyright on a
term like 'STR.' You can trademark it. This seems to be what TSR is
saying when they use the nebulous term, 'copyright and trademark
infringement.' But STR isn't marked with a trademark symbol in the
books, so it's not trademark. So, Jim, Steve, et al, how am I violating
copyright by using the format of STR, DEX, INT, WIS,etc?
You can't copyright a formula. You can patent it, but you can't
copyright it. Good luck to TSR on getting AD&D patented.
This of course leaves aside the issue that other gaming companies use a
very similar format and TSR leaves them alone. This indicates that TSR
hasn't a legal leg to stand on and is relying on intimidation to do the work.
Eventually, TSR will try to bully someone, and that person will get help
from the EFF, and TSR will have a real lawsuit on their hands. The
issue will probably be decided in our favor sometime after that.
If you want an example of a company with an equitable and fair net
policy, look at FASA. Jim, Steve, did their lawyers go to a better
school then your lawyers, or is TSR just a bunch of shortsighted,
malignant little greedheads?
Brian "Just asking" Trosko
George W Harris
>John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>>I'm not even asking for a comprehensive list of _everything_ they
>>consider protected-- that would probably be rather more
>>comprehensive than I'd care to read. But thus far, in the
>>incident with Morpheus' Web site, they have done nothing but
>>demand that the entire page be shut down, rather than
>>communicating to Morpheus or his providers exactly what portions
>>of those pages are violations or infringements, that those
>>infringements might be removed.
>
>Characters and represnetations which clearly denote TSR product
>material. Again, this is right out of standard copyright law.
>If you used Waterdeep for a book, and it was recognizable as
>the Waterdeep from the Forgotten Realms, you are in violation
>of copyright.
>
>And yes, any created entity by TSR is indeed protected by this.
>This includes Raistlin, WaterDeep, Dragonlance, The Forgotten
>Realms, AD&D mechanics, et cetera. If it's recognizble as a TSR
>derivitive, it is a copyright violation. That's the law. There
>is no list of words which are copyrighted. It's how they are
>used.
Whoops! You revealed your fundamental ignorance there. Right
before et cetera. Game mechanics are *not* protected by copyright. A
particular expression fo them came be, but the mechanics themselves are
not. Thus, it is perfectly permissable to create a passle of spells,
character classes, scenarios, and characters, all of which use AD&D
mechanics, and distribute them however and to whomever you please. TSR
attempts through the FUD strategy to prevent people from doing this.
>>"All of it," is not a sufficient answer.
>
>From a legal standpoint, it is.
No, wrong.
>>I've yet to see anything helpful from TSR in this forum.
>>And I _don't_ like being given a runaround or consecutive
>>non-answers to my questions.
>
>Which is to say that you don't actually want to go LOOKING
>for the answers to your questions. It took me five minutes
>and two phone calls (one to Rob Repp, at the time, who
>referred me to legal.)
And were the helpful people at legal the ones who gave you the
misinformation about game mechanics being protected by copyright?
Perhaps you see now why he characterizes their resposes as runaround and
consecutive non-answers. That's actually being generous, because if that
*is* where you got that misinformation, it would be fair to characterize
their responses as lies.
>>And in case it has escaped notice, I haven't been one of the
>>people running around encouraging others to do stupid things,
>>like scan TSR works directly into their machines and publish
>>_those_ on Web pages. That, obviously, would be a copyright
>>violation. In fact, I have publicly (in this forum) and
>>privately (through e-mail) castigated people for proposing these
>>hair-brained schemes.
>
>I didn't cite you in particular as commiting any crimes. I
>DID however try to point out that your complaint is misplaced.
You tried and failed. His complaint is valid.
>Yes I read it. I was illustrating the point of the net's attitude!
>Please remember that Jim isn't a part of the legal department at
>TSR. Asking him to get legal specifics is like asking the grocer-
>sack-boy to describe the meat content reports and then legally
>bind the store to it.
He posted the standard TSR legal boilerplate. If he doesn't
understand it and can't explain it then he shouldn't present it. Doing
so makes him look like a fool.
>Again, this wasn't gear towards you speicifically, but even you
>just admitted that this indeed does happen, often. This material
>is then collected in archive sites, often. Is TSR wrong for wanting
>to stop this practice?
No. However, they *are* wrong for attempting to stop people from
distributing any AD&D supplementary material without forfeiting their
legal rights to distribute it in any way they please, and threatening any
site which does not toe the line which TSR draws. *That* is the source
of the difficulty, and *that* is what drives so many netters to *want* to
injure TSR in the manner you describe. What, you think people are doing
this for shits and fucks? Hell no, they're doing it because TSR is
pissing them off. It's not an appropriate action to take, but the
attitude that motivates it is justified.
>>You might want to determine the position of the person you're
>>arguing against, rather than making one up on the spot.
>>
>>You will also find me denigrating TSR for their tactics of
>>claiming copyright violation right and left with what seems to
>>many of us to be a dubious, shoddy understanding of what can and
>>cannot be copyrighted, and you will find me making repeated calls
>>for something more specific than that which they've already provided.
>
>It's not my fault that you do not understand copyright laws.
But it *is* your fault that *you* do not understand copyright laws.
>>You have no idea why I'm angry at TSR right now, do you?
>>I have no great love for TSR. I haven't liked their material for
>>years, with the possible exception of their early Forgotten
>>Realms material. I have no great hatred for TSR either, but I
>>will not let their posturing pass without vocal challenge.
>
>No, reading your post, and those of others, STRONGLY indicates
>to me that you are a typical anti-TSR bigot! You hate the company
>for whatever reason and automatically take a defensive stance against
>them when they try to run their business.
The defense "They're a business" is frequently brought up
whenever a business behaves in an unethical and offensive manner. It's
not a valid defense. Being a business is no excuse for being a bully.
>How much different would it have been if a group of the netters
>said 'We understand your concerns about copyright infringement
>on the internet, and there is a problem. Some possible steps to
>remedy this situation include...'
How much different it would have been if TSR had said "We've
noticed that the following items on your web page are in violation of our
copyright, Morpheus: A, B, ...
>But no, this never happened. What DID happen was that when news
>got out that TSR was going on-line with AOL, several people started
>to deliberately and defiantly place TSR property on internet sites,
>to give this copyrighted work away for free. To quote someone
>'This material is to advance our creative works, therefore, it
>should be made free and public to everyone.' The material was a
>fully scanned copy of the 2nd edition PHB and DMG. TSR then took
>it upon themselves to try to regulate the situation, with little
>help from, and lots of hatred from, the lovely internet.
Of course, this is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand, which
is TSRs refusal to offer specifics of alleged copyright violation in
favor of threatening *anyone* who posts *any* AD&D-realted material on an
ftp or web site.
>This is what I refer to, and this is the argument I make. I am
>very tired when TSR takes so much flak for what they do, simply
>because they are a company which does make money, and the netters,
>who mostly get their access for free from schools (which isn't
>really free, mind you), break the law in the name of some
>greater good which they cannot fathom.
Oh, we're all really impressed with you over here. Anytime you
want to get off your soapbox and actually contribute something relevant
to the articles to which you respond, we'd be most grateful.
>NealeD
>>John S. Novak, III j...@cegt201.bradley.edu
--
George W. Harris gha...@emerald.tufts.edu
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W Harris
>In article <matuseDB...@netcom.com>, Matuse <mat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>Please tell me which setting or characters are not being protected
>>in say...the complete netbook of sex. Since there are no names or places
>>mentioned at any point (aside from maybe 1 or 2 wholely-fabricated names
>>for magic items), what trademark or copyright is being infringed upon?
>
>By attaching the AD&D or TSR name to it, they may be placed at risk for
>being legally responsible for such work. Remember that TSR was sued on
>several occiasion for material that Mayfair put out on demons and what
>Palladium did for magic.
Oh, this is rich. Do you happen to know if those lawsuits were
dismissed out of hand? Or perhaps TSR was actually licensing the
material to those entities at the time? Do you have a citation for these
cases? Since when is publishing material on demons and magic actionable,
anyway?
>>>And I have little respect for netters who want to violate the law,
>>>steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>>>which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>>>their paychecks.
>>
>>How about the "netters" who do not violate the law, have nothing to do
>>with copyrighted works, and still tell everyone how bad the company is?
>
>The net is full of people that simply hate companies, government,
>schools, system administration, and game masters.
Oo, right, gov, we're all bomb-throwing anarchists here! I'm the
evil midnight bomber, what bombs at midnight! Yeah, baby!
Now that you've ranted would you care to actually address the
question? Or do you want to decry how the Illuminati are funding the UN
in an attempt to create One World Government and take away our precious
right to own assault weapons?
>>>TSR has full backing of the US Legal Department.
>>
>>Funny, I've heard of organizations like "The Justice Department" and "The
>>Attorney General's Office", but never once have I heard of the "US Legal
>>Department".
>
>Sould I have my attorney make replies from now on, child? Argue semantics
>all you want!
Look, if you don't even know the name of the Justice Department,
why should we think you have even the smallest clue about copyright law?
>>Again, your screaming fits of horrifying ignorance are an ugly thing to see.
>
>I'm not the one looking at fines and jail-time for his point of view on
>this! All I'm saying that it doesn't seem very hard to deal with any of
>these companies if you just use your damn phone!
Clue time. No one is looking at fines or jail-time for a point
of view. Points of view are free. You can hold any one you want, even
if it *is* based on total ignorance and a paranoid hatred of everyone who
disagrees with you.
>NealeD
Matuse
>>>>
>He can tell us SPECIFICALLY what TSR does and does not consider
>protected. He could tell us what parts of the Web site in
>question TSR regards as illegal. He could, in effect, answer the
>bloody questions, rather than continue to play pasty for TSR's
>legal department.
>>>>
>
>We've had this discussion countless times; if black & white answers were
>available, we'd have no need of lawyers or courts.
>
>As to what items are in violation at Morpheus's site, you can log on their
>now and take a look at "The Death of Sturm" artwork by Larry Elmore that
>is prominently displayed on his RPG homepage. There were other violations
>there as well, but they appear to have been removed.
>
>It's hard to provide black & white answers in a gray world...
Then why does TSR try by systematically shutting down *every single site*
which has any material? (copyright violation or not). Seems like a pretty
black/white "solution".
Neale Davidson
>Neale Davidson (pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>
>: steal copyrighted works, and tell everyone how bad the company
>: which made their game is for wanting to feed their families with
>: their paychecks.
>
>right, even when they are not. If you are so damned sure of yourself,
>prove it. What are your references for this? Explain how you come to
>the conclusion that, as you implied, all netters are copyright violating
>scum who steal food from the mouths of little children.
First, I do not believe TSR is always right. They are, however, in this
regard. You obivously are annoyed that you cannot do whatever you want
on the net anymore. For that, I pity you, but should warn you to get
over it. For better or ill (for ill, in my opinion) net rights are
about to evaporate completely.
> I have seen numerous netters dig up proofs from lawbooks, court
>cases, and so forth that indicate TSR is full of shit on this copyright
>issue. I have yet to see TSR list even a single trademark or copyright
>in response to a direct question.
Okay. Here we go.
Copyright n. The exclusive legal right to the publication, sale, etc.
of a literaly or artistic work. -vt. to pretect by copyright.
Webster's new world dictionary.
All TSR characters, charater names, spell names, magical item names,
unique place locations, and the distinct likenesses thereof are
trademarks owneder by TSR Inc. Random House and its affliliate
companies have made worldwide dsitribution rights in the book
trade for English language products of TSR, INC. Distributed to the
toy and hobby trade by regional distirbutors. Distributed to the
book and hobby trade in the United Kingdom by TSR Ltd. This
work is protected under the copyright laws of the United States
of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the material
or art work presented herein is prohibited by law without the
express written permission of TSR, Inc.
(c)1995 TSR, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
From Encyclopedia Magica, Volume 3, (c)1995.
What part of this do you not understand?
"The clearest problem that most people view of copyright
is that they think that it only applies to the literal
translation of the text. This is grossly untrue. The
meaning and creative style of the text is also protected
by these laws. Changing the word does not relinquish
the copyright in whole or in part."
Randy Cable - Copyright lawyer, from interview. MY LAWYER.
Any questions?
>
Neale Davidson
>Neale Davidson (pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>
>your ignorance. You consistently imply that most if not all of the
>people on the net steal copyrighted material right and left, plagiarize,
>distribute scanned copies of the PHB, etc. You also have claimed that
No, not everyone does this, but it is done. Therefore, TSR has
justification in its actions.
>nobody asked TSR politely for a list, that we all just yelled. Not
>true. In the beginning, we were outraged, but still quite polite, under
>the circumstances. We were at best ignored, and at worst given the
>run-around.
When this first came up, I remember the use of the word 'T$R' on a
regular basis, the word 'bastards' came up often. Never did I see
polite words going to TSR. I talked to Rob Repp personally when
this matter first started. He NEVER, and I mean NEVER, recieved
any rational or mature pieces of mail over this matter.
You claim that anybody who disagrees with TSR's stance is a
>'bigot' who hates the company. Do the terms 'freedom of speech',
>'slander', and 'libel' mean anything to you?
Um, yes. I have not directly insulted your character, I merely
made a point. Very ignorant of you. :) Those terms mean a lot
to me, and you are, now, guilty of two of them. Then again, so
am I. Should we sue each-other?
>
> To my knowledge, very few people have posted illegal copies of
>the PHB or other books to the net. I'm fairly active with FTP, and
>reading usenet, and generally, anybody who does something like that
>(which rarely occurs) is flamed heavily.
But SOME did. That's the problem. I never said everyone did, just
enough to make TSR understandibly upset. Even if it is frowned upon
by the net, it's still illegal and it is TSR's right (as in copy-right)
to defend themselves.
> Why do you think of a boycott as bad? Do you mean to say that if
>I strongly disagree with a company's policies and actions, that I am
>required to continue purchasing their products?
No. If you don't like it, don't buy. Boycotts, however, serve to
aggirvate the situation, and they don't work anyway.
> You have stated that netters responded to TSR objecting to copies
>of the PHB circulating on the net with hatred and little help. Not
>true. Most of the furor resulted from widespread shutdowns of FTP sites
>carrying modules, house rules, and new spells and monsters by TSR.
After the fact, yes. But please remeber that notices were given with
a thirty-day warning on them. Many responses were something akin to
'screw you' and other equally enlightened diatribes. So, they got shut
down. Every FTP site knew what it was doing well before they were closed
down.
> TSR gets a lot of flak because they DESERVE a lot of flak. While
>I admit that legal terms tend to be a bit heavy-handed, TSR seems to be
>putting weights in it's gloves here. To my knowledge, no other
>RPG-producing company pursues percieved violators (real violators or more
>often peopls who didn't violate anything) to such an extent as TSR does.
There's a group of gaming companies which have united for this express
purpose. I wish I had the details on it, but I'll have to dig through
my Dragon magazines for that bit.
> One last question. Are YOU a lawyer, NealeD? Do you know all
>that you claim to know? Now, don't get insulted by this, but you have
>been claiming to possess a great deal of knowledge, and have been highly
>insulting to a large number of people. Are you a lawyer, a law student,
>or just another layman?
Me, insulted? You did that long ago. No, I am not a lawyer, I keep a
Copyright lawyer on retainer since I'm starting up my own game publication
business. A lot of these legal questions come up freqeuently.
NealeD
Neale Davidson
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Berg (be...@eskimo.com) wrote:
>: What is copyrighted though? Until they spell out just what is
>: and is not copyrighted under the law, then how will us laymen know what
>: we can and cannot publish?
>
>The actual content of everything that TSR publishes is copyrighted. That
>seems simple enough.
>
>The problem arises where TSR feels that it has copyrights over the
>mechanics of AD&D. It most certainly does not; game rules and mechanics
>can not be copyrighted.
>
>So we run into the following disagreement. If I make a list of spells,
>with the format:
>
>Level:x Casting Time:xx Area Of Effect:xx
>Save:xx Duration:xx
>
>and not a single spell in the list ever appeared in anything TSR ever
>published, have I violated their copyrights?
>
>Most of us say no, since such things as casting time and area of effect
>are issues of game mechanics, and such things can't be protected by
>copyright. TSR's legal department claims differently. Similarly, if I
>were to make a list of characters, and listed such attributes as STR,
>DEX, INT, WIS, etc., TSR feels this would be violating their copyrights.
Ah, but a gaming system is a CREATIVE work, which IS protected. At least,
that's the argument which TSR uses. The Role-Aids line from Mayfair was
dropped due to this line. Palladium survived since it was, overall,
different ENOUGH to be a non-derivitive work.
>This is ridiculous. First of all, you can't even put a copyright on a
>term like 'STR.' You can trademark it. This seems to be what TSR is
>saying when they use the nebulous term, 'copyright and trademark
>infringement.' But STR isn't marked with a trademark symbol in the
>books, so it's not trademark. So, Jim, Steve, et al, how am I violating
>copyright by using the format of STR, DEX, INT, WIS,etc?
No, you cannot copyright a word. It's the USE which matters.
>You can't copyright a formula. You can patent it, but you can't
>copyright it. Good luck to TSR on getting AD&D patented.
Doesn't need a patent. It's a CREATIVE work, and sold as such. Computer
Games are copyrighted in the same way. So are paitings, poetry, and
other things.
>This of course leaves aside the issue that other gaming companies use a
>very similar format and TSR leaves them alone. This indicates that TSR
>hasn't a legal leg to stand on and is relying on intimidation to do the work.
Again, see the above. The question is 'is it different enough?'.
>Eventually, TSR will try to bully someone, and that person will get help
>from the EFF, and TSR will have a real lawsuit on their hands. The
>issue will probably be decided in our favor sometime after that.
Not likely. The internet is becoming more regulated, and laws regarding
copyright will seem like minor potatoes...
>If you want an example of a company with an equitable and fair net
>policy, look at FASA. Jim, Steve, did their lawyers go to a better
>school then your lawyers, or is TSR just a bunch of shortsighted,
>malignant little greedheads?
Oh yes, FASA. 'Excuse me, Ford, about the use of the name 'AEROSTAR',
we're using that for one of our Aerospace fighters, so you can't use
it.' Ford's reply, 'We will buy you.'
I don't know where I first hear this, but I thought it was hilarioius.
For the record, TSR almost always WINS its legal disputes, with a
couple of notable exceptions. FASA loses a lot more often. Ask again
about PLAYMATES...
>Brian "Just asking" Trosko
NealeD
Neale Davidson
George W Harris <gha...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
>In article <3u98nf$6...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Neale Davidson) writes:
>>In article <3u90n0$f...@cegt201.bradley.edu>,
>>John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>>>I'm not even asking for a comprehensive list of _everything_ they
>
>before et cetera. Game mechanics are *not* protected by copyright. A
>particular expression fo them came be, but the mechanics themselves are
>not. Thus, it is perfectly permissable to create a passle of spells,
>character classes, scenarios, and characters, all of which use AD&D
>mechanics, and distribute them however and to whomever you please. TSR
>attempts through the FUD strategy to prevent people from doing this.
The concept of copyrighting game mechanics falls under whether they
are an invention or a creative work. TSR claims that they are a
creative work, and is thusly protected. Last I heard, this is still
being disputed, but the swing is still in TSR's favor.
>>From a legal standpoint, it is.
>
> No, wrong.
Um, right. Everything TSR puts out says that EVERYTHING in the
work is copyrighted. So 'All of it' certainly is valid.
> And were the helpful people at legal the ones who gave you the
>misinformation about game mechanics being protected by copyright?
>Perhaps you see now why he characterizes their resposes as runaround and
>consecutive non-answers. That's actually being generous, because if that
>*is* where you got that misinformation, it would be fair to characterize
>their responses as lies.
That would be MY lawyer, when we were discussion what of my games
were protected. (I didn't want to lose an entire game system to
someone I had submitted it to, if they turned it down.) A game system
is defined as a creative work.
>>I didn't cite you in particular as commiting any crimes. I
>>DID however try to point out that your complaint is misplaced.
>
> You tried and failed. His complaint is valid.
No, you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
>
> He posted the standard TSR legal boilerplate. If he doesn't
>understand it and can't explain it then he shouldn't present it. Doing
>so makes him look like a fool.
Sending out that boiler plate is his job, don't you friggin get that?
>
> No. However, they *are* wrong for attempting to stop people from
>distributing any AD&D supplementary material without forfeiting their
>legal rights to distribute it in any way they please, and threatening any
>site which does not toe the line which TSR draws. *That* is the source
>of the difficulty, and *that* is what drives so many netters to *want* to
>injure TSR in the manner you describe. What, you think people are doing
>this for shits and fucks? Hell no, they're doing it because TSR is
>pissing them off. It's not an appropriate action to take, but the
>attitude that motivates it is justified.
See, you're wrong. :) I couldn't resist. Really though, just because TSR
is coming off rough in posts (who doesn't) does not give ANY justifaction
for illegal acts. As for the distribution, since it >IS< TSR's work (in
part) they have the right to warrant it. I know that's frustrating, but
it's so easy to avoid it really shouldn't be a problem.
>>It's not my fault that you do not understand copyright laws.
>
> But it *is* your fault that *you* do not understand copyright laws.
I DO understand copyright laws, since they will greatly affect my
life very soon.
> The defense "They're a business" is frequently brought up
>whenever a business behaves in an unethical and offensive manner. It's
>not a valid defense. Being a business is no excuse for being a bully.
They're exercising they're rights, so are you. We are having a difference
of opinion on the matter, where we are both stating our perceptions. As
far as companies goes, I have known a few which resort to far more
underhanded tactics than TSR.
> How much different it would have been if TSR had said "We've
>noticed that the following items on your web page are in violation of our
>copyright, Morpheus: A, B, ...
Originally, they did. I have one of those letters.
NealeD
Brian Trosko
: I haven't seen the net book, and I am not TSR. I can't say what they
: found offensive. From your description, however, I suspect that AD&D
: rules were used in a satire.
In which case it would be completely in the clear. Satire and parody are
exceptions to the usual fair use guidelines, as the Supreme Court has
ruled. Or does noone remember 2 Live Crew's song that used extensive Roy
Orbison samples?
: invention called a book.
Which one?
Brian "just asking" Trosko
Brian Trosko
: Ah, but a gaming system is a CREATIVE work, which IS protected. At least,
: that's the argument which TSR uses. The Role-Aids line from Mayfair was
: dropped due to this line. Palladium survived since it was, overall,
: different ENOUGH to be a non-derivitive work.
Ah, no. How's the following grab you?
Copyright Act of 1976
Source: Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101-810.
Section 102. Subject matter of copyright: In general.
(a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in
original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of
expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be
perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or
with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the
following categories:
(1) literary works:
(2) musical works, including any accompanying words;
(3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music;
(4) pantomimes and choreographic works;
(5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works;
(6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; and
(7) sound recordings.
(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of
authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of
operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in
which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
Get it? Game mechanics are ideas, procudures, processes, systems,
methods of operations. They can't be copyrighted.
Now either post something substantive or go away. Continued "My lawyer
told me so," and "I read it in a book" statements will be promtly
ignored. Give us evidence, or shut up.
Brian "STR DEX INT WIS CON CHR" Trosko
Matuse
>In article <matuseDB...@netcom.com>, Matuse <mat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>(in paraphrased terms, I don't have a copy of the netbook to check) THIS
>>HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TSR, AND IF YOU THINK IT DOES, YOU ARE MAD!
>
>found offensive. From your description, however, I suspect that AD&D
>rules were used in a satire.
Parts of it are amusing (hell parts of the print books are amusing) but
basically it touches on species compatability, venereal diseases, magic
items that relate to sex (the latter category being the more amusing aspect).
And if satire was illegal, MAD magazine would have gone out of business
decades ago.
>>And yet the concept that maybe there is a legitamite greivance here
>>totally escapes you...amazing.
>
>There are legitimate worries here. But it escapes you that some of the
>worries you have are unwarranted.
I'm worried that if I want to set up a file for distribution on my ftp site,
that TSR will come raging out of their legal hole and attempt to
terminate my account and press monetary damage charges on me. This is not,
by any means, an unwarranted concern.
>>First, I am not you child, nor would I particularly wish to be.
>Well, as the saying goes... STOP ACTING LIKE ONE!
How would I know how your children act?
>>And coming from someone who claims to know so much about the law, I think
>>the fact that you name fictitious government agencies in your arguements
>>negates any "semantics" defense.
>
>I wasn't referring to an agency in particular, jsut the fact that US law
>supports their case. As for my knowledge on these laws, I used a novel
>invention called a book.
In other words, you can't own up to making a mistake.
>>>>Again, your screaming fits of horrifying ignorance are an ugly thing to see.
>You act so insulted when I call you a child. After this line, I can't
>really believe you are anything more.
If the truth is insulting, you need help.
>>>All I'm saying that it doesn't seem very hard to deal with any of
>>>these companies if you just use your damn phone!
>>
>>Why should we bother when they have *3* netreps here to answer our
>>questions for us? Course, in the well-over-a-year that this arguement has
>>been going, they haven't said one concrete word on the subject...maybe
>>talking to them in person (by voice) will actually make them say something.
>
>MAYBE because the net-reps are not the legal deapartment.
Yes, and MAYBE they can *ask* the legal department, eh? Since this is
such a large issue, and the legal department already enjoys muddling
around in internet activities, why not this one?
George W Harris
>In article <3ua44p$j...@emerald.tufts.edu>,
>George W Harris <gha...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
>>In article <3u98nf$6...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu (Neale Davidson) writes:
>>>In article <3u90n0$f...@cegt201.bradley.edu>,
>>>John Novak <j...@cegt201.bradley.edu> wrote:
>>>>I'm not even asking for a comprehensive list of _everything_ they
>>
>> Whoops! You revealed your fundamental ignorance there. Right
>>before et cetera. Game mechanics are *not* protected by copyright. A
>>particular expression fo them came be, but the mechanics themselves are
>>not. Thus, it is perfectly permissable to create a passle of spells,
>>character classes, scenarios, and characters, all of which use AD&D
>>mechanics, and distribute them however and to whomever you please. TSR
>>attempts through the FUD strategy to prevent people from doing this.
>
>The concept of copyrighting game mechanics falls under whether they
>are an invention or a creative work. TSR claims that they are a
>creative work, and is thusly protected. Last I heard, this is still
>being disputed, but the swing is still in TSR's favor.
Well, seeing as the form you fill out to register a copyright
with the Library of Congress specifically states that game mechanics are
not copyrightable, I'd say the degree of dispute is pretty minor, and
that the swing is not in the direction you claim.
>>>From a legal standpoint, it is.
>>
>> No, wrong.
>
>Um, right. Everything TSR puts out says that EVERYTHING in the
>work is copyrighted. So 'All of it' certainly is valid.
True, but irrelevant. Way back in all those bits that got
discarded was the original question which was "What on this site is in
violation of copyright law?" 'All of it' is not an acceptable answer."
So, try to keep on the subject, please.
>> And were the helpful people at legal the ones who gave you the
>>misinformation about game mechanics being protected by copyright?
>>Perhaps you see now why he characterizes their resposes as runaround and
>>consecutive non-answers. That's actually being generous, because if that
>>*is* where you got that misinformation, it would be fair to characterize
>>their responses as lies.
>
>That would be MY lawyer, when we were discussion what of my games
>were protected. (I didn't want to lose an entire game system to
>someone I had submitted it to, if they turned it down.) A game system
>is defined as a creative work.
Gee, you'd better alert the Library of Congress so they can
change their forms.
>>>I didn't cite you in particular as commiting any crimes. I
>>>DID however try to point out that your complaint is misplaced.
>>
>> You tried and failed. His complaint is valid.
>No, you're ignoring things you don't like to hear.
Look, I don't like to read your idiotic rantings, but I'm not
ignoring them. That's because I have a personality flaw: fools anger me.
>> He posted the standard TSR legal boilerplate. If he doesn't
>>understand it and can't explain it then he shouldn't present it. Doing
>>so makes him look like a fool.
>
>Sending out that boiler plate is his job, don't you friggin get that?
What is he, the chairman of the board's idiot second cousin? If
he doesn't understand it and can't explain it, then he should ask someone
who does and can, and post their reply. He works at TSR, right? Surely
*someone* their understands it? Or maybe they know it's nonesense and
just keep quiet.
>> No. However, they *are* wrong for attempting to stop people from
>>distributing any AD&D supplementary material without forfeiting their
>>legal rights to distribute it in any way they please, and threatening any
>>site which does not toe the line which TSR draws. *That* is the source
>>of the difficulty, and *that* is what drives so many netters to *want* to
>>injure TSR in the manner you describe. What, you think people are doing
>>this for shits and fucks? Hell no, they're doing it because TSR is
>>pissing them off. It's not an appropriate action to take, but the
>>attitude that motivates it is justified.
>
>See, you're wrong. :) I couldn't resist. Really though, just because TSR
>is coming off rough in posts (who doesn't) does not give ANY justifaction
>for illegal acts. As for the distribution, since it >IS< TSR's work (in
>part) they have the right to warrant it. I know that's frustrating, but
>it's so easy to avoid it really shouldn't be a problem.
For the first part, you should take time to read what I wrote:
"It's not an appropriate action to take." Or are you ranting at the
nameless masses of netters who hate corporations, governments, schools,
system adminstrators, and kittens again?
As to the second part, if it doesn't contain quotes or
paraphrases of TSR material, and it doesn't contain any unacknowledged
trademarks used to confuse the consumer into thinking it's a TSR product,
then no, they have no such right, and their actions are not warranted.
>>>It's not my fault that you do not understand copyright laws.
>>
>> But it *is* your fault that *you* do not understand copyright laws.
>
>I DO understand copyright laws, since they will greatly affect my
>life very soon.
Everything you post here indicates otherwise. Maybe you should
contact the the U.S. Legal Department for clarification. I'm sure you
can find their Audiocommunicator Codes in the Saffron Sheets of the Far
Away Talking Consortium.
>> The defense "They're a business" is frequently brought up
>>whenever a business behaves in an unethical and offensive manner. It's
>>not a valid defense. Being a business is no excuse for being a bully.
>
>They're exercising they're rights, so are you. We are having a difference
>of opinion on the matter, where we are both stating our perceptions. As
>far as companies goes, I have known a few which resort to far more
>underhanded tactics than TSR.
Yep, I'm sure they do. Just because what they are doing is legal
doesn't mean they aren't acting like jerks, however. It's perfectly
legal to threaten people with legal action, even to sue them, when
they've done nothing wrong. It is, however, the hallmark of assholes.
>> How much different it would have been if TSR had said "We've
>>noticed that the following items on your web page are in violation of our
>>copyright, Morpheus: A, B, ...
>
>Originally, they did. I have one of those letters.
Really? You have a letter TSR sent to Morpheus? How did you get that?
>NealeD
Matuse
>In article <DBsGE...@eskimo.com>, Berg <be...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>>Neale Davidson (pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>>right, even when they are not. If you are so damned sure of yourself,
>>prove it. What are your references for this? Explain how you come to
>>the conclusion that, as you implied, all netters are copyright violating
>>scum who steal food from the mouths of little children.
>
>First, I do not believe TSR is always right. They are, however, in this
>regard. You obivously are annoyed that you cannot do whatever you want
>on the net anymore. For that, I pity you, but should warn you to get
>over it. For better or ill (for ill, in my opinion) net rights are
>about to evaporate completely.
Standard doom-sayers *HUGE YAWN* This kind of scare-tactic bullshit has
been going around hundreds of topics for hundreds of years...and yet it
never manages to appear.
And please quote the article where *anyone* says that they are angry at
TSR from preventing them from doing "whatever you want on the net".
>All TSR characters, charater names, spell names, magical item names,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They are going to try and copyright "fireball" "lightning bolt" "wish"
and "longsword +1" Oh PLEASE.
And what exactly is the difference between a TSR character, and a
character name? Does "TSR character" mean the classes? MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH,
I'd like to see them try and defend a copyright to the word "mage".
>unique place locations, and the distinct likenesses thereof are
>trademarks owneder by TSR Inc. Random House and its affliliate
>companies have made worldwide dsitribution rights in the book
>trade for English language products of TSR, INC. Distributed to the
>toy and hobby trade by regional distirbutors. Distributed to the
>book and hobby trade in the United Kingdom by TSR Ltd. This
>work is protected under the copyright laws of the United States
>of America. Any reproduction or unauthorized use of the material
>or art work presented herein is prohibited by law without the
>express written permission of TSR, Inc.
This is a pretty limited supply of items...but since it comes from TSR,
it must be official...so pray tell mr. legal expert: By what right does TSR
force people to not distribute a net.book.of.spells, which only contains
(non copyrightable!) game mechanics, and a whole plethora of new spells
that do not involve a single spell listed in any AD&D rulebook, nor any
other aspect of AD&D rules.
Morpheus
>By breaching nettiquet and posting e-mail communications in the public
>newsgroups?
Oh no! Now I'm a netiquette breacher!
Well I never claimed to be perfect....
alot of you are holding me to higher standards than TSR
and here's what I mean when I say that.
I had 2 gif's that violate copyright... I admit thats a mistake,
allbeit that you'll see that same mistake all over the web...
(not intended to be justification merely explanation)
TSR by supressing copyrighted works (Yes the netbooks are copyrighted..
by the people who actually WROTE them)
any file that MPGN decides to use only needs to be found in an incoming
dir... they proceed to attach the disclaimer which is a modification
to the original work that makes in not freely distributable so to speak
Now riddle me this... what if someone OTHER than the author uploaded
it? If there were or are copies floating around this is a distinct
possibility. So TSR am I wrong in assuming that you didn't have
nessecarily contact the author?
let me know if I'm wrong.
WinningerR
in say...the complete netbook of sex. Since there are no names or places
mentioned at any point (aside from maybe 1 or 2 wholely-fabricated names
for magic items), what trademark or copyright is being infringed upon?<<<
Probably none.
WinningerR
or experience to answer these questions, or the simple gumption
to ask TSR's legal department for a more clear statement of what
is and isn't considered an infringement, then he serves no
purpose in this discussion other than to annoy, distract, and
obfuscate.<<<
So he has no right to participate in this discussion as an individual?
WinningerR
to a government web or ftp site where we can download some sort of legal
definition of "derived from"?<<<
Can't give you an ftp site, but I can recommend looking up the term in a
legal dictionary (you should find one in any library).
Basically, if it's obvious that your work refers to TSR's characters and
settings, it's derivative. Although this isn't quite the case, it probably
serves as a good working definition. One special exception to the law
deserves mention (since I've seen such materials on the Net): satire. If
you are obviously satirizing TSRt, you have a lot more leeway.
WinningerR
can.<<<
Huh?
>>>Furthermore, the disclaimer says that if it is derived from TSR's works
_or_
uses TSR trademarks, it may not be distributed. To satisfy an "or", you
only
need to satisfy one of the two conditions, so if it is not derived from
TSR's
works, but it does use TSR's trademarks, then TSR is still claiming rights
over it.<<<
Again, this isn't quite true.
WinningerR
several occiasion for material that Mayfair put out on demons and what
Palladium did for magic.<<<
Actually, the Mayfair suit was a far more complicated issue. It had
nothing to do with DEMONS.
WinningerR
provide a source (hopefully on-line and reliable) which will
explain the difference?<<<
Insofar as the law is concerned, only the legal definition of "derivative"
(or anything else, for that matter) is relevant.
George W Harris
>In article <3ua4d6$n...@nnrp1.primenet.com>,
>
>Ah, but a gaming system is a CREATIVE work, which IS protected. At least,
>that's the argument which TSR uses. The Role-Aids line from Mayfair was
>dropped due to this line. Palladium survived since it was, overall,
>different ENOUGH to be a non-derivitive work.
This is untrue. It is a fallacious argument. The Role-Aids line
from Mayfair was discontinued because they failed to adhere to the terms
of a specific licensing agreement. Palladium was never in any danger
because their publications, whatever their merits, are nowhere near a
derivative work.
>>This is ridiculous. First of all, you can't even put a copyright on a
>>term like 'STR.' You can trademark it. This seems to be what TSR is
>>saying when they use the nebulous term, 'copyright and trademark
>>infringement.' But STR isn't marked with a trademark symbol in the
>>books, so it's not trademark. So, Jim, Steve, et al, how am I violating
>>copyright by using the format of STR, DEX, INT, WIS,etc?
>
>No, you cannot copyright a word. It's the USE which matters.
You can't copyright the use of a word, either, bub. TSR! TSR!
TSR! TSR! Perfectly fine. "STR stands for Strength and is a measure of
a characters strength. It is rolled on 3d6." Perfectly fine.
>>You can't copyright a formula. You can patent it, but you can't
>>copyright it. Good luck to TSR on getting AD&D patented.
>
>Doesn't need a patent. It's a CREATIVE work, and sold as such. Computer
>Games are copyrighted in the same way. So are paitings, poetry, and
>other things.
No, formulae are not copyrightable. The specific *code* of a
computer game can be copyrighted, but if I write different code that does
the same thing, that's not a violation, Apple Computers notwithstanding.
Similarly if I write a book that describes how to play AD&D that is not a
restatment of paraphrase of any of TSR's works IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF
COPYRIGHT LAW!!! I don't even know why you're bringing up poetry and
paintings.
>>This of course leaves aside the issue that other gaming companies use a
>>very similar format and TSR leaves them alone. This indicates that TSR
>>hasn't a legal leg to stand on and is relying on intimidation to do the work.
>
>Again, see the above. The question is 'is it different enough?'.
If it's not a restatement or paraphrase, the answer is *yes*.
>>Eventually, TSR will try to bully someone, and that person will get help
>>from the EFF, and TSR will have a real lawsuit on their hands. The
>>issue will probably be decided in our favor sometime after that.
>
>Not likely. The internet is becoming more regulated, and laws regarding
>copyright will seem like minor potatoes...
And the banjo grows angry at midnight. Hello? Usually when you
answer a statement, it's customary for your answer to bear some relevance
to the preceding statement.
>>Brian "Just asking" Trosko
WinningerR
work derives from TSR's previous work, and on TSR's ownership
of the work. <<<
Of course it does. The point is this: if you've accepted the fact that you
need the disclaimer on your work, you've accepted the fact that your work
is derivative. Given this fact, you give up NO rights by including the
disclaimer.
If you don't think your work is derivative, ignore the disclaimer
completely. Until somebody tries to stop you, distribute your work as you
see fit.
WinningerR
You want quotes, cowboy? Here you go:
This is from the Circular 1 on Copyright Basics available at the Library
of Congress' ftp site -- Title 17 of the US Code.
"Section 106 of the Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright
the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:"
A list of rights follows, among them is:
" -- To prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;"
Then we jump immediately to:
"It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided
by the Act to the owner of copyright."
It is illegal to prepare works derivative of someone else's copyright.
Pretty clear. Black and white. Here's another quote from the same
material:
"Copyright protection subsists from the time the work is created in
fixed form; that is, it is an incident of the process of
authorship."
In other words, if you had any idea what you were doing, you would have
KNOWN that those scans you placed on your page were copyrighted, because,
in fact, EVERYTHING is copyrighted from the moment it is created. Unless
the work is explicitly in the public domain or includes a license for
republication, you can't add ANYTHING to your page that you didn't create
yourself unless you get the permission of the creator.
WinningerR
and is not copyrighted under the law, then how will us laymen know what
we can and cannot publish?<<<
Under the law, EVERYTHING is copyrighted the moment it is written or
presented.
WinningerR
the circumstances.<<<
Actually, there was pseudo-righteous indignation, name-calling, and
deliberate attempts to ignore the facts at hand almost from the first day
the whole TSR/Internet controversy started. Not from everyone, mind you.
But to pretend that this didn't happen in droves is ridiculous.
Matuse
>In article <matuseDB...@netcom.com>, Matuse <mat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>and passing it out is perfectly fine (how could you play the game
>>if this was not true?)...only it suddenly becomes not-fine when it goes
>>onto the internet for reasons unknown. Logic error, danger will robinson,
>>danger, danger!
>
>Start passing out those modules now! :) Really, though, legally, means of
>distribution usually has no bearing on copyright.
Except according to TSR, it does. Of course they have been on
fundamentally flawed legal ground before, so this is mostly a
continuation of events.
>TSR did give, in the PHB
>and DMG, a limited license to give material to those involved in the game
>with you.
I could make a fine arguement that would probably stand up in court that
every person who reads my posts in the newsgroup is involved in the game
with me.
Matuse
>In article <matuseDB...@netcom.com>, Matuse <mat...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>posted that story here on the DnD group, I'd get all sorts of legal
>>hate-mail from TSRs law jockeys, and thats just not right.
>
>Would you? There are newsgroups dedicated to fantasy fiction, and the net
>law jockeys aren't harping there. It would depend on what else the story
>contained, obviously. If he was Fleeblenoodle of Cormyr in the Dales,
>friend to Eliminster... you get the idea...
Nothing so blatant as all that...Fleeblenoodle wielding a +2 broadsword,
fighting orcs and regenerating trolls would be sufficient.
>>>>"All of it," is not a sufficient answer.
>>>
>>>From a legal standpoint, it is.
>>
>>Oh, well, simple then: Any post which contains any words which I have
>>written is copyrighted by me, and anyone using those words (in a quote or
>>otherwise) without my express permission will be subject to legal penalties.
>
>Words, by themselves, cannot be copyrighted. Meaning is copyrighted. Otherwise,
>you could simply translate any book to a foriegn lingo and call it a new work!
>
>>That is TSR's general standpoint on the issue.
>
>You've missed the point of copyright.
No, you've missed the point of TSR's actions...they can freely say "all
of it" to material inside a hardbound book they print...but the same is
most definately not true of net.books, and yet thats what they continue
to do "there is a scanned picture of a copyrighted TSR work here, so the
other 20 megabytes of material is now our intellectual property...shut down
your site or we will pursue legal action".
>>If its so easy to get, then it should be equally easy for a netrep to
>>post this, neh? The fact that none have is quite telling indeed. My guess
>>is that the legal department was either lying out its ass to you, or you
>>phrased the problem incorrectly...asking them if it was ok to use clear
>>TSR trademarks (like FR/DS/Drizz't/etc) would get an obvious answer...try
>>asking about the net book of sex.
>
>Like I said before, a netrep isn't a legal representative. At best, he's
>a mediator. Plus, statements made on the internet are considered VERBAL
>unless they are archived. The copyright information is actually available
>on their net sites... (Ironic, isn't it?)
Ok, so go call the people who *are* in legal, and ask them what aspects
of the net.book of sex violates TSR copyrights...assuming the person you
talk to knows of it at all, i'd be willing to bet you get a major stonewall.
>As for the net book of sex, it was more that the TSR and AD&D name was
>included in it often, associating the company with something that they
>did not want associated with. They had a right to stomp on it, like it
>or not.
Actually, the disclaimer at the top is the only mentioning of TSR or D&D,
and specifically states that the net.book is in no way affiliated with TSR,
and TSR holds no responsibility for the information within. Please tell
me how something could be less related than that (and it most certainly
wasn't replete with references to TSR copyrights)
>>practictioners :)), the problem comes when TSR tries to throw its muscle
>>around on files that have -*0*- trademarks or copyrights in them, but are
>>made for play in the D&D game. If it was truly illegal to do this, then
>>all DMs in the world would be forced to buy TSR approved modules to run
>>*every single adventure* because creating their own would violate this
>>ruling.
>
>Negative. GM's are encouraged to create material, it's the distribution
>which causes problems.
So what is defined as legal distribution? 1 person? 3? 5? 10? 100?
>No, people are asking for a list of things which are copyrighted, which
>CAN NOT BE DONE with copyright law. You cannot copyright a word. That
>is why you're not getting a definitive list. The line that I said, where
>you are directly using TSR work in your own, is the violation. Like legal
>does, use your own best judgement.
If you cannot list items that are copyrighted, then things cannot be
copyrighted at all can they? "I have a copyright!" "over what?" "I can't
tell you, there is no explanation for it".
>>You are in the wrong arguement. Its lovely that TSR prevents people from
>>scanning and posting copies of pages from their books...i'm all for that...
>>but thats not what they are doing.
>
>Actually, it is, but the argument has gone long past that.
Yes, the arguements have gone past that because the actions have gone
past that. Ok, its fine for them to tell morpheus "please remove X from
your site as it falls under our copyright (specifically, the scanned
pictures)"....but saying "shut down your site of all material" is plain
bullshit.
WinningerR
before et cetera. Game mechanics are *not* protected by copyright. A
particular expression fo them came be, but the mechanics themselves are
not. Thus, it is perfectly permissable to create a passle of spells,
character classes, scenarios, and characters, all of which use AD&D
mechanics, and distribute them however and to whomever you please.<<<
As long as you don't use TSR's "particular expressions" of those
mechanics?
>>>
>From a legal standpoint, it is.
No, wrong.
<<<
Who can argue with that?
WinningerR
are issues of game mechanics, and such things can't be protected by
copyright. TSR's legal department claims differently. Similarly, if I
were to make a list of characters, and listed such attributes as STR,
DEX, INT, WIS, etc., TSR feels this would be violating their copyrights.
This is ridiculous. First of all, you can't even put a copyright on a
term like 'STR.'<<<
Actually, the eariler poster started walking down the thread of TSR's
argument. TSR claims that they have a copyright on their particular
expression of the game mechanics. In other words, sure you can prepare all
the spells you want, but if you use nothing but the same terms TSR uses to
describe these spells, your using TSR's particular expression of the AD&D
game mechanics. TSR wants you to go ahead and tell everyone how far the
wizard can throw the spell, how long the spell lasts, etc. without clearly
copying their format and expression. They want you to either use the
disclaimer, or make up your own format and expression (ie. change some of
the names around).
Note that this wouldn't necessarily stand up in court.
WinningerR
site* which has any material?<<<
Have they tried to "shut down" a site at which there were no copyright
violations? I'd be interested in the details.
WinningerR
Not really. The TSR/Mayfair lawsuit had little, if anything, to do with
the issues raised here (though it eventually may have encompassed those
issues). The Role Aids line wasn't really dropped, it was sold to TSR when
Mayfair management decided it was no longer interested in publishing AD&D
products. This decision was not a response to threats or intimidation.
(Two of the products acquired from Mayfair are actually on TSR's 1995
schedule).
WinningerR
site,
that TSR will come raging out of their legal hole and attempt to
terminate my account and press monetary damage charges on me. This is not,
by any means, an unwarranted concern.<<<
I wouldn't let them scare you. Before they "attempt to terminate your
account" or press "monetary damages" on you, they'll send you a polite
letter asking you to simply remove the file.
WinningerR
from Mayfair was discontinued because they failed to adhere to the terms
of a specific licensing agreement. <<<
This too is untrue.
WinningerR
methods of operations. They can't be copyrighted.<<<
Yes, they probably are, though no court has actually determined such to be
the case. Just because we call them gaming SYSTEMS and the law mentions
SYSTEMS doesn't mean the two are identical.
Neale Davidson
Brian Trosko <btr...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Neale Davidson (pho...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>Copyright Act of 1976
>Source: Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101-810.
>
>told me so," and "I read it in a book" statements will be promtly
>ignored. Give us evidence, or shut up.
>
First of all, you are citing a 20 year old act, which YOU KNOW has been
modified since. I'll look up formal texts on copyright when I hit the
law library monday.
This case has been argued greatly, but what you are saying is this.
It is okay to reproduce, in different wording, any gaming system and
use it as your own. This includes, down to the last detail, the
skill lists, spell lists, and other ideas particular to this system.
Okay, fine. Tell me, where are all the Gurps rewrites, or AD&D rewrites,
or Clue rewrites or Risk rewrites... They are not there. Copyright law
was expanded several times to allow gaming companies to hold on to
what kept them afloat. You, you little thief, would rather no one get
ANY reimbursement for their time in effort in designing a game system
by just saying that they are all for free.
I Know that copyright law has come up more recently than 76.
Also, no, I will not shut up, since I have as much of a privalege to
speak here as you do, thief.
NealeD
Neale Davidson
>from Mayfair was discontinued because they failed to adhere to the terms
>because their publications, whatever their merits, are nowhere near a
>derivative work.
This was after they continued to produce without the agreement. And yes,
Palladium is VERY OBVIOUSLY realted to AD&D. I pity you greatly if you
cannot see the lineage! I'm not saying that Palladium is AD&D, it just
got its start from there.
>>>This is ridiculous. First of all, you can't even put a copyright on a
>>>term like 'STR.' You can trademark it. This seems to be what TSR is
>>>saying when they use the nebulous term, 'copyright and trademark
>>>infringement.' But STR isn't marked with a trademark symbol in the
>>>books, so it's not trademark. So, Jim, Steve, et al, how am I violating
>>>copyright by using the format of STR, DEX, INT, WIS,etc?
You are using a significant portion of the AD&D design. Therefore, you
are in direct vilation of their copyright.
> You can't copyright the use of a word, either, bub. TSR! TSR!
>TSR! TSR! Perfectly fine. "STR stands for Strength and is a measure of
>a characters strength. It is rolled on 3d6." Perfectly fine.
TSR is a company, twit, and is a Trade Mark, not a copyright. Also, the
rule you quoted above may not be in copyright violation, since it isn't
a significant part of AD&D. And yes, dammit, copyright is ENTIRELY about
the use of our lanaguge and of out protecting our creative claims on our
material.
What you're saying, in effect, is that all you need to do is scan in
any piece of work, change ONE bit, and the copyright is no longer
valid? See you in prison, bub.
> No, formulae are not copyrightable. The specific *code* of a
>computer game can be copyrighted, but if I write different code that does
>the same thing, that's not a violation, Apple Computers notwithstanding.
>Similarly if I write a book that describes how to play AD&D that is not a
>restatment of paraphrase of any of TSR's works IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF
>COPYRIGHT LAW!!! I don't even know why you're bringing up poetry and
>paintings.
The AD&D rules are indeed copyrightable. They are. So are the rules for
Clue, Monopoly, and Risk. As for 'writing a code that does the same
thing', that would be akin to Gurps, Showdowrun, and Hero. Now, what
is going on here is taking some of their source code, adding bits to
it, and then calling it your own. Sorry, in this world, that is completely
illegal!
>>Again, see the above. The question is 'is it different enough?'.
>
> If it's not a restatement or paraphrase, the answer is *yes*.
Wrong. Have you talked to an attorney about this lately? There has to be
a substantial difference between works to lose a copyright. There cannot
be any substantial use of TSR work, and any work at all of specific
character likenesses, and other such.
>>Not likely. The internet is becoming more regulated, and laws regarding
>>copyright will seem like minor potatoes...
>
> And the banjo grows angry at midnight. Hello? Usually when you
>answer a statement, it's customary for your answer to bear some relevance
>to the preceding statement.
That was very relavent. The internet has only spawned a small handful
of court cases, mostly about 'freedom on the internet'. Most times the
guy claiming 'censorship' and other such loses.
Now we have a whole schlew of new laws out there because a few people
who do not understand the law abuse their privaleges (note that I did
not say 'rights', simply because there are no such things on the net)
and perpetrate criminal acts. Then the entire defense comes up to be
'the world SHOULD be run this way'.
It's very unlikely that any group would support your claim. If you
win in court, that would signal the end of the entire Gaming Industry
since no one would have any copyrightable claim on their work, AT ALL.
Who would support such a decision?
NealeD
Neale Davidson
John Menichelli <meni...@pixi.com> wrote:
>On a related note...
>
>Task Force Games/Amarillo Design Bureau design/publish Star Fleet
>Battles. They are *very* protective of their copyright. However, there is
>a company (I forget the name off-hand) publishing Star Fleet Battles
>supplements. Each supplement booklet has a disclaimer on the front saying
>that the material is not authorized by TFG/ADB. How are they able to do
>this (considering TFG/ADB get their rights from Paramount), while T$R
>gets all hinky when others do the same?
The company is named Companion Games, they're put out the Galatic
Empires card game. There was some other legal issues involved (something
about an illegal contract stipulation) which has caused a rift.
Even though I do some work for Companion Games, I am against their use
of TFG related materal. TFG HAS actually set in motion legals works to
cause Companion to cease and desist, but they haven't pressed the issue
It would cost more to prosecute that the damages that they are incurring.
Sheer volume-wise. TSR has a whole lot more to lose than TFG.
NealeD
Brian Trosko
: The AD&D rules are indeed copyrightable. They are. So are the rules for
: Clue, Monopoly, and Risk.
Neale, you've put your foot firmly into your mouth. A while ago, a game
company produced a game called _AntiMonopoly_, using the same rules as
the Parker Brothers game, _Monopoly_. Parker Brothers didn't like this,
and took the game company to court. Parker Brothers lost the suit,
since, and get ready for this, game mechanics and rules can't be copyrighted.
: It's very unlikely that any group would support your claim. If you
: win in court, that would signal the end of the entire Gaming Industry
: since no one would have any copyrightable claim on their work, AT ALL.
: Who would support such a decision?
Bullshit, Neale.
Here's the just of it: copyrights are intended to protect concrete
expressions of ideas. If you make something I can point to, listen to,
look at, or otherwise use in a tangible manner, then you can copyright
it. If it's not tangible, you can't. You can't copyright game rules.
Brian "Broken record" Trosko
Brian Trosko
: Also, no, I will not shut up, since I have as much of a privalege to
: speak here as you do, thief.
Neale, either produce evidence that I have stolen from anyone, or
publically retract the above comment. You're edging pretty damn close
to slander, there.
Brian "Not joking" Trosko
Neale Davidson
be unwavering. The simple fact of the matter is that, you can indeed
copyright game mechanics IN THE CONTEXT OF A GAME. That is, mechanics
temselves aren't, but if they are a part of a game, they enjoy that
game's copyright. Period. I'll forward you to your own copyright act
for that one.
What REALLY bothers me about you, is that you are advocating the
absolute removal of copyright on any rules set. This would put gaming
companies OUT OF BUSINESS, particularly Parker Brothers and their
ilk (TSR uses more creative works to help keep them afloat). You
don't seem to have a problem with this, but as someone who intends
to make a living in the game market, I do.
>Neale, you've put your foot firmly into your mouth. A while ago, a game
>company produced a game called _AntiMonopoly_, using the same rules as
>the Parker Brothers game, _Monopoly_. Parker Brothers didn't like this,
>and took the game company to court. Parker Brothers lost the suit,
>since, and get ready for this, game mechanics and rules can't be copyrighted.
Wrong. The rules set is different (I have played the game), and it is
OBVIOUSLY satirical on Monopoly. The full information on this court case
in on Court TV on America Online. I just read it.
>Bullshit, Neale.
>
>Here's the just of it: copyrights are intended to protect concrete
>expressions of ideas. If you make something I can point to, listen to,
>look at, or otherwise use in a tangible manner, then you can copyright
>it. If it's not tangible, you can't. You can't copyright game rules.
No, the rules themselves aren't copyrighted, the game is. Then, the
rules used in the game are protected by the game's copyright. Game
Mechanics alone cannot be copyrighted.
You are obviously endorsing stealing bits from AD&D in particular, and
distributing it freely. Would it be okay if I took a good deal of YOUR
material, built on it, and sold it to someone? No. How about if I used
a system which you developed, changed a word here and there, and sold
it? No, it wouldn't be. That IS the law.
For the Record, a definintive article on copyright law is in Court
TV on America Online, search for the word 'Copyright'. It does say
'you cannot copyright an idea, but you can copyright the expression
of an idea.' Game Mechanics are EXPRESSIONS of ideas.
NealeD
>Brian "Broken record" Trosko
At least you are admitting something.
Bruce Baugh
winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) wrote:
>Actually, there was pseudo-righteous indignation, name-calling, and
>deliberate attempts to ignore the facts at hand almost from the first day
>the whole TSR/Internet controversy started. Not from everyone, mind you.
>But to pretend that this didn't happen in droves is ridiculous.
True. It is also true that more than one of us remarked that what we most need
here is a definitive list from TSR as to what it claims are its copyrighted
and/or trademarked terms. I realize that this would be a <understatement> long
list </understatement>; it should no doubt be broken down by volume. But we
_need_ a list, so that we can discuss specifics. TSR has not, so far, been
forthcoming with such a list.
bru...@teleport.com _____________ http://www.teleport.com/~bruceab/
List Manager, Christlib, for Christian and libertarian concerns
Preview S.M. Stirling's forthcoming novel DRAKON at my home page
"Encrypt! Encrypt! OK! All-One-Key-Steganography-Privacy!
God's law prevents decryption above 1042 bytes - Exceptions? None!"
Bruce Baugh
winni...@aol.com (WinningerR) wrote:
>Under the law, EVERYTHING is copyrighted the moment it is written or
>presented.
Also true, but not exactly. For example, I was just re-reading Hemingway's
story "The Snows of Kilimanjaro". The whole story is Hemingway's. But this
does not mean that other writers since have been unable to write about
Kilimanjaro, leopards, animal incarnations of death, or marriages of
convenience without violating his copyrights. Likewise, the existence of WEST
SIDE STORY doesn't make it a copyright violation to now create a story placing
Shakespearean elements in a modern-day urban environment.
There are limits to copyright. Might as well drag out my hobby-horse again: we
need a list.
George W Harris
>>>>Whoops! You revealed your fundamental ignorance there. Right
>before et cetera. Game mechanics are *not* protected by copyright. A
>particular expression fo them came be, but the mechanics themselves are
>not. Thus, it is perfectly permissable to create a passle of spells,
>character classes, scenarios, and characters, all of which use AD&D
>mechanics, and distribute them however and to whomever you please.<<<
>
>As long as you don't use TSR's "particular expressions" of those
>mechanics?
That's correct, with "particular expression" meaning sections of
text more substantial than "7th level Fighter" or "Hit Points". You can
describe a spell in terms of level, casting time, range, duration, area
of effect, and material components freely, as formats are not copyrightable.
>>>>
>>From a legal standpoint, it is.
>
> No, wrong.
><<<
>
>Who can argue with that?
Somone who includes the context?
George W Harris
>In article <3uaaf7$o...@emerald.tufts.edu>,
>George W Harris <gha...@emerald.tufts.edu> wrote:
>> This is untrue. It is a fallacious argument. The Role-Aids line
>>from Mayfair was discontinued because they failed to adhere to the terms
>>of a specific licensing agreement. Palladium was never in any danger
>>because their publications, whatever their merits, are nowhere near a
>>derivative work.
>
>This was after they continued to produce without the agreement. And yes,
>Palladium is VERY OBVIOUSLY realted to AD&D. I pity you greatly if you
>cannot see the lineage! I'm not saying that Palladium is AD&D, it just
>got its start from there.
Oh, obviously. However, the Palladium rulebooks are in no way
an adaptation of the TSR rulebooks. It way very well be that the
Palladium *system* is an adaptation of the AD&D system, but it is the
*expression* of the system that is protected under copyright law, and
Palladium did not adapt (at least to my knowledge) any portion of TSR's
expression of the AD&D system. What they did was reverse-engineer the
system from the expression, adapt that, and then express this
adaptation. (Reverse engineer is a bit of a haughty term for what they
did, but it gets the point across).
>>>>This is ridiculous. First of all, you can't even put a copyright on a
>>>>term like 'STR.' You can trademark it. This seems to be what TSR is
>>>>saying when they use the nebulous term, 'copyright and trademark
>>>>infringement.' But STR isn't marked with a trademark symbol in the
>>>>books, so it's not trademark. So, Jim, Steve, et al, how am I violating
>>>>copyright by using the format of STR, DEX, INT, WIS,etc?
>
>You are using a significant portion of the AD&D design. Therefore, you
>are in direct vilation of their copyright.
No, you can't copyright game systems. Using the AD&D game system
to describe an original character is not a violation of copyright. Read
the relevant portion of the legal code which has been posted to this group.
>> You can't copyright the use of a word, either, bub. TSR! TSR!
>>TSR! TSR! Perfectly fine. "STR stands for Strength and is a measure of
>>a characters strength. It is rolled on 3d6." Perfectly fine.
>
>TSR is a company, twit, and is a Trade Mark, not a copyright. Also, the
>rule you quoted above may not be in copyright violation, since it isn't
>a significant part of AD&D. And yes, dammit, copyright is ENTIRELY about
>the use of our lanaguge and of out protecting our creative claims on our
>material.
Copyright *is* entirely about language; in this case it protects
the *specific* language used to express an idea. What it does *not* do
is protect ideas, systems, formulae, etc. I can write a manual on how to
play AD&D, and as long as I'm explicitly clear that the manual is in no
way endorsed by TSR, and do not use any of TSR's actual written material,
I am not in violation of copyright law.
>What you're saying, in effect, is that all you need to do is scan in
>any piece of work, change ONE bit, and the copyright is no longer
>valid? See you in prison, bub.
Where did I say that? No, what I'm saying, in effect, is just
because someone else drew a picture of a paladin in Hell, doesn't mean
*I* can't draw (and freely distribute) a picture of a paladin in hell, so
long as my picture does not use *significant portions* (which does not
mean "all but one bit" of or is not a direct adaptation of the earlier
picture. My complete lack of artistic ability might be a problem, but
that's neither here nor there.
>> No, formulae are not copyrightable. The specific *code* of a
>>computer game can be copyrighted, but if I write different code that does
>>the same thing, that's not a violation, Apple Computers notwithstanding.
>>Similarly if I write a book that describes how to play AD&D that is not a
>>restatment of paraphrase of any of TSR's works IT IS NOT A VIOLATION OF
>>COPYRIGHT LAW!!! I don't even know why you're bringing up poetry and
>>paintings.
>
>The AD&D rules are indeed copyrightable. They are. So are the rules for
>Clue, Monopoly, and Risk. As for 'writing a code that does the same
>thing', that would be akin to Gurps, Showdowrun, and Hero. Now, what
>is going on here is taking some of their source code, adding bits to
>it, and then calling it your own. Sorry, in this world, that is completely
>illegal!
*Sigh*. Read the section of the Library of Congress form letter
regarding game rules. Game rules are not colyrightable. In just about
every city in the United States, there's a "customized" version of
Monopoly, using local street names, etc. These are not necessarily
produced by Parker Brothers (I know the one in Boston isn't). They
aren't in violation of copyright law because they don't use the same
*expression* of the rules, but it *is* the same game. I could write a
manual describing how to play AD&D, and so long as I am explicit about it
not being affiliated with TSR and do not use significant portions of
TSR's actual text, it *is* legal.
>>>Again, see the above. The question is 'is it different enough?'.
>>
>> If it's not a restatement or paraphrase, the answer is *yes*.
>
>Wrong. Have you talked to an attorney about this lately? There has to be
>a substantial difference between works to lose a copyright. There cannot
>be any substantial use of TSR work, and any work at all of specific
>character likenesses, and other such.
This is true, because "substantial use" means quotation,
restatement, or adaptation of actual text. It does not refer to the
rules, formats or systems described in the text. Only the actual
description is protected.
>It's very unlikely that any group would support your claim. If you
>win in court, that would signal the end of the entire Gaming Industry
>since no one would have any copyrightable claim on their work, AT ALL.
>Who would support such a decision?
Well, since that's the interpretation the courts have already
taken, and that is in the legal code, I think your doomcrying is a little
unwarranted.
>NealeD
Jay Adan
>
>We've had this discussion countless times; if black & white answers were
>available, we'd have no need of lawyers or courts.
>
>As to what items are in violation at Morpheus's site, you can log on their
>now and take a look at "The Death of Sturm" artwork by Larry Elmore that
>is prominently displayed on his RPG homepage. There were other violations
>there as well, but they appear to have been removed.
>
>It's hard to provide black & white answers in a gray world...
Jim,
Doesn't this seem a little unreasonable?
Let's look at an analogy here.
Let's say I log on to the TSR area on AOL and see something that somebody
has uploaded there that belongs to me. It's my copyright and I can prove
it. So what do I do? I e-mail AOL and tell them that I want everything
removed from TSRs file libraries beause they are violating my copyright?
I don't think so.
Michael T. Richter
>>that you claim to know? Now, don't get insulted by this, but you have
>>been claiming to possess a great deal of knowledge, and have been highly
>>insulting to a large number of people. Are you a lawyer, a law student,
>>or just another layman?
>Me, insulted? You did that long ago. No, I am not a lawyer, I keep a
>Copyright lawyer on retainer since I'm starting up my own game publication
>business. A lot of these legal questions come up freqeuently.
Oh, really? What's the name of the purported company?
I need to know whose products to avoid.
---
Michael T. Richter
m...@globalx.net
(613)828-8328
Fraser Cain
>
>In article <1995Jul14....@news.wrc.xerox.com>,
>Guy Robinson <guy....@rx.xerox.com> wrote:
> Call every competitive gaming magazine and ask if they'd like
>an full details about this. Morpheus, especially, should be
>giving interviews left and right to White Wolf, et al. Get the
>word out!
>
> *ALSO*, put flyers up all over GenCon. TSR will try to rip them
>down if they aren't 'approved', but an inundation of them should
>still get the point across. Something like:
This has become reactionary, and silly. If you have a problem with the way TSR does
business, then don't buy their products. If you want to publish adventures and material
based on TSR products, then be nonspecific, and be sure you don't infringe on any
trademarks.
TSR's attitudes on this subject are not out of line. In every other industry, copyrights and
trademarks are defended ruthlessly. And justifiably so. That's how the company makes
its money. If I wanted to draw my own Spiderman comic, and sell it in comic stores,
Marvel would come after me -- rightfully so.
But the net's free, right? So you're not actually selling anything. But that's not how TSR
sees it. There will be money to be made on the Internet for storing gaming material. I'm
not sure, but I would assume that the company with the sanctioned site is paying money
for this privilage.
Everything we're seeing in this arguement is just growing pains as we move from
a print-format distribution to an electronic-format distribution. Old copyright laws just don't
work anymore. It could turn out that copyrights are impossible to control, and TSR
will go out of business. I can promise you, though, that TSR is investigating it right now,
and until they've figured out what to do, they want to clamp down as much as possible.
It's understandable.
Fraser Cain
-------------------------------------------------------
These ideas are mine! Mine, mine, mine all mine!
Fraser Cain 1371 Fountain Way
fc...@direct.ca Vancouver, B.C.
(604)730-1020 V6H 3T2
WinningerR
>Start passing out those modules now! :) Really, though, legally, means of
>distribution usually has no bearing on copyright.
Except according to TSR, it does.
<<<
How?
>>>I could make a fine arguement that would probably stand up in court
that
every person who reads my posts in the newsgroup is involved in the game
with me.<<<
That's INCREDIBLY unlikely.
Olson Kevin
Question for all in Networld: About a year ago I saw an ad for an EC
version of Monopoly: all the place names were from Europe, the cards were
adjusted to reflect modern-day problems, and the pieces used on the board
were different. I do not believe that it was produced by Parker-Brothers
(or whoever makes Monopoly). If I am correct that it was indeed produced
by someone else, that might shed light on the debate about rules mechanics
(at least for board games). Can anyone verify this particular game?
Second, can anyone _definitively_ show where the inclusion of Trademarks,
when properly attributed, prevents the distribution of works? If I have a
character drinking a Coke in something, where does the law state that I
must get the permission of Coke to include this detail in my work (e.g., a
book that I write). Now, I know that there was some debate about using
Coke or Pepsi in movies, and there was something about the movie ET and
M&Ms (and hence the use of Reece's Pieces). In short, I would like to see
the clear text indicating when and under what circumstances the use of
Trademarks require the prior approval of the holder.
Third, somewhere it was suggested that the use of 3d6 for the generation
of character stats is something that TSR can copyright. The idea of using
dice to generate character statisticis is not protected. The use of 6
particular attributes (i.e., str, dex, wis, con, int, chr) is probably
not, since other games use similar if not identical statistics. Can the
idea of 3d6 be protected? I doubt it. It may be the case that the use of
6 statitics (the above) in the range of 3-18 with particular modifiers may
be (assuming that game mechanics can be protected -- a subject of much
debate). So, if I create an NPC that has the following stats, TSR _might_
have the ability to say something:
STR: 18/25 (note especially that not just 18, but an additional parameter)
INT: 15
WIS: 10
DEX: 14
CON: 9
CHR: 15
If I create an NPC that has exceptional strength, very bright, average
widsom, is quite agile, has average health, and is quite good looking, I
do not believe that TSR has _any_ claim on this expression. Somewhere or
another I also believe that someon (Rob Repp?) stated that the use of
generic descriptions such as the above was completely OK as well.
So, given that we already have conversions (i.e., very weak (3-5), weak
(6-8), average (9-11), above average (12-14), etc.), one way to avoid much
of the difficulties would appear to make more generic descreptions.
Personally, I happen to believe that the debate about the
non-copyrightable nature of game systems to be correct, but we can avoid
much difficulty by adopting the above system.
Now what about spells. Let us reflect for a moment about how a spell
might be described generically in history. Obviously, it was limited to
certain people. Not just anyone could invoke the gods, nor could just
anyone create magical effects. Moreover, we know that the various
alchemists, etc., banded together in close-knit groups. Hence, the idea
of priest and mage cannot be subject to copyright, and the division of
schools within mage (or wizard or whatever) cannot either. Now perhaps it
is the case that, while the words enchanter, illusion, necromancy, etc.,
cannot be copyrighted, their assembly into a particular groups under the
header of "magic school" could be (again granting the prior assumption
that game mechanics can be copyrighted). However, I believe it was Jim
(I'm sorry I don't recally his last name, handle = TSRJim) who stated that
the use of schools was allowed. Hence, we are free to develop any spell
following the standard divisions of schools.
Now, how else would the spell be described? Obviously, spells had a
certain area in which they were effective. Area of Effect seems to be a
logical way of describing this. The lasted for some period of time, and
Duration would seem to be a logical way of describing this part of the
spell. And so forth. So, the individual components as words cannot be
copyrighted, and it seems logical that the expression of a spell in terms
of what TSR has developed (schools, AoE, Duration, Casting Time, etc.),
are open to us as well. Now, TSR may claim the following: it is all well
and good that a spell would be described in those terms, but it is the
direct application in the following manner. While a spell might be
described using all the same ideas as we have generated, there are some
aspects which are essential to our game. For example, Casting Time as
expressed in rounds, or duration expressed in rounds (though I no longer
know what a round is!).
Hence, again assuming that the game mechanics might be subject to
copyright restrictions, we need an analogous solution to the idea of
"weak" "above average" and so forth which can allow us to write more
generic spells which do not require direct reference to the AD&D system,
but can be coverted to is if we so desire. Re-doing the Net Book of
Spells in this format, though time consuming, would avoid this entire mess.
The $20 million question is: can game mechanics, and the expression of
certain aspects such as character and spell description (monster, etc.) be
copyrighted. It is evident that the spells in the AD&D system, depicted
in terms of so many rounds, so large an area of effect, with a particular
description attached to it _are_, _can_ and _properly should be_ protected
by copyright law. Which does not, as I understand it, prevent me from making
reference to any of the spells in any context (My 4th level wizard casts a
Magic Missile spell).
The net community is faced with a series of difficulties. First, it is
highly dispersed. Despite the majority feeling that TSR's actions are
wrong (and whether they are legally right or wrong will take a court to
decide, I'm afraid; btw -- am I the only one who is upset knowing that the
price of the texts are going up to support an increasing legal dept. at
TSR?), getting organized is obviously quite difficult. Despite the
efforts of some, the net community is poorly organized. While this
decentralization is often a strength, history shows that any dispersed
group is usually overwhelmed by more concentrated groups (and if you are
into rational choice at all, it is obvious as to why).
Second, my belief is that TSR is mounting an attack that we cannot win.
And I state this with my most heartfelt sadness. In the court system, TSR
has more money with which to do battle, and the sad fact is that money
does indeed influence the outcome of court cases. In addition (somethning
that has not been raised here to the best of my knowledge), we would be
fools to believe that TSR is not actively lobbying in Congress to have
protions of the law changed in their favor. Since we, the net community,
cannot match the money, the time, expertise, nor concentrated lobbying,
the law shall indeed come to resemble what TSR wants in the absence of any
counterveiling forces. Since I assume that most other gaming companies
have feelings similar to TSR (since they share a similar economic stake,
and elsewhere it has been suggested that in fact several gaming companies
have already formed a consortium), we should probably not bank on
assistance from other companies. If we are to succeed at all, the net
community would have to become more organized than it ever has before.
Are we ready and willing to do this?
Which leads to two hopes. The first is that TSR gets more sites operating,
mirrored and that we can negotiate a better arrangement concerning the
status of ownership of items posted to these approved sites. The second
is that we can adopt a system that is more generalized in its descrptions,
and produce guides which allow for the easy inclusion of the NPCs, spells,
monsters, etc., into our respective worlds. Since I know of few GMs who
adopt wholesale any particular rule, the need to customize a bit should be
of a limited challenge.
Finally, there has been some discussion here about company image. I
submit to the community at large that part of TSR's actions are indeed to
protect its image. Reference has been made here to the Net Book of Sex as
a book which TSR wishes not to be associated with. I suggest that, under
the guise of "image" TSR is engaging in outright censorship. If TSR does
not wish to have such topics associated with its gaming system, it needs
to draft a text which may be attached stating that it does not condone the
following work, etc. To the extent that actions by TSR are not for legal
purposes but for "image" purposes which amount to censorship, we must
fight TSR! And no claims about "stealing", "ignorance", or anything else
are valid in this case.
Oh, one last thing. To whomever suggested that there are no rights on the
net -- I suggest that such an idea is patently absurd. Under no
circumstances can certain rights be revoked by the medium of exchange.
Rights such as freedom of expression can and do remain in force. While
certain limiting guidelines may also apply, it is simply untrue that the
net, no matter how it is accessed, removes certain inalienable rights. I
assume that in the heat of writing you did not think through the
implications of what you posted.
Thank you for your time.
Kevin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Olson | "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"
Department of Political Science |"Mudo liceat vivere, est spes."
University of Pittsburgh |
| "La guerre qui gaspille tout -- le
| sang, la vie, le courage." (Daham)
on leave at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (e-mail v942...@vub.ac.be)
kol...@vms.cis.pitt.edu
WinningerR
broadsword,
legal response]<<<
Are you sure? Have you tried it?
Fraser Cain
subject. Before you begin a holy crusade against TSR, I'd make sure you're
standing on firm legal ground.
http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/hypertext/faq/usenet/Copyright-FAQ/top.html
David Bolack
says...
>OK. I'll buy that, for the moment. Now, can someone give us a pointer
>to a government web or ftp site where we can download some sort of legal
>definition of "derived from"?
Try this. Found it on a webcrawl..
gopher://palimpsest.stanford.edu/00/ByTopic/copyright/copyright.act/copyr
ight.act.chap1.17_USC_101.txt
>
>Rob Dean
>rob...@access.digex.net
>
>
--
---
http://www.io.com/~plaid
If you want to see what the Villains & Vigilantes authors are up to these
days, check out this page!