Setting Publishers' Minds at Ease

[Gary Christiansen]

Copyright Attorneys I've spoken with say the whole thing can fall either way Fritz. They've said there are a number of odd things that apply that can make it not so simple or concrete, the derived material concept, that games are not treated the same as other kinds of copyright, the very very nebulous concept of 'fair use' which is under attack for other kinds of media, and the material concept of deeper pockets having more weight in terms of sustaining any legal cases. The last one I talked to directly in person refused to offer any significant opinion about which way it could fall simply because he could not faithfully go on record and be sure of being right.

The topic of copyright is better left alone than tested and the idea of working with companies in partnership is a much more appropriate method of accomplishing the goal anyway. This is why what you are doing with CBDO is so critical Fritz, it's the first step to building an alliance with the publishers, instead of waging war.

I think the folk at Warzone C don't give the copyright issue any thought at this point, they seem to be too busy gaming to notice there may be issues.

[Fritz]

Let's do it. I've upset enough people lately; any volunteers? Maybe Dale Larson? Just a thought - if we're self-policing, are we an anarchy? F2

[Chris Fawcett]

The prima facie comments made by your gal indicate to me that she hasn't read any of the case law surrounding the game copyright issue. (I suppose that's what prima facie means, though, dunnit?)

[Fritz]

Uh, no, Chris, that's not what "prima facie" means. Before actually going to court, a prima facie case must be established by the plaintiff. The "first view" case is a statement of either clear violation or a strong suspicion, ie enough to convince a judge there's a case worthy of litigating. Awhile back (2-1/2 yrs?) I posted a Gamebox with scanned maps against the desires of the copyright holder; Cyberboard is the only means with which someone can obtain/use this copyrighted material (the Gamebox). That alone - one illegal download - is a prima facie case. Napster lost its case along the same lines but couldn't be shut down because it merely "contributed vicariously" to copyright violation; it wasn't actually a copyright violation in and of itself. Still, using CB to obtain copyrighted material against the wishes of the copyright holder is a prima facie case when it becomes illegal distribution of said material. I posted a really good review of the case earlier in this thread; Napster is still connecting people for free CD's and we haven't heard the end of it: one judge has called Napster's compliance "shameful". In a nutshell, doing it at home is OK; posting on the web is prima facie. F2

[Chris Fawcett]

Heh. And you claim to be a simple cook! ;D

But I understand the part about there needing to be a case. And that's why I don't allow scanned images anymore, and require that gamebox owners assign me distribution rights for their submissions.

BTW, I also protect my copyrights. I have had to send notices to people who have lifted images of gamebox maps and the like, that they must ask my permission and give me credit, or remove the IP. I just sent out another notice today, to the developer of the Game Turn software (www.gameturn.org).

[Fritz]

OK, you're a copyright pro; now, why can't I find the copyrights actually registered somewhere? Really, I've looked. It would help alot if they were registered at the US copyright office, but my searches there don't turn up any names in any categories. I'll do the links if someone would tell me where to find'em.... F2

[Chris Fawcett]

You don't have to register copyrights in order to "validate" them. By not registering with the LoC, you waive any rights to punitive damages in any court case, but judgements for actual damages can still be made, even without a register entry. Entries cost virtually nothing, but if there's no actual monetary gain or loss to be had (as in my case), what's the point?