IP Infringement
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jacog Feb 09, 2009 3:42 AM EDT |
From the download site for "Grid Wars":Quoting:Sorry folks... I've had to remove the link to the download. Email from BizarreCreations: "We're beginning to feel the effects of the Geometry Wars clones on our sales via Microsoft now and are beginning a process to begin to more robustly protect our copyright and intellectual property. |
| Sander_Marechal Feb 09, 2009 3:47 AM EDT |
Just google around. There are plenty of places where you can still download GridWars if you want to try it. As for the complaint, it's a shame that the authors caved in like that. I would have let someone assess the feasibility of that claim and solved the problem (either by telling BizzareCreations that they can go take a hike or by chainging GridWars enough to invalidate the claim). It's such a shame to have a piece of software that you worked on be killed like this. |
| hkwint Feb 09, 2009 7:59 AM EDT |
The notion of "IP and copyright is als totally flawed. IP is an umbrella losely referring to patants, trademarks and copyright, but talkin about IP without referring which of the three you mean is nonsense. I don't know the clone, but I don't think it violates the copyright. The only ways left is that BizarreCreations has patents, or trademarks. Note to myself: Tell the makers of the clone to send a notice to LinuxDefenders 911 (These are the patent-heavyweights who promised to protect open source) to ask for legal help. |
| jacog Feb 09, 2009 8:01 AM EDT |
It seems a little petty, if you ask me. I doubt it's affecting their sales at all. They sales might be down, sure... but that's probably just because the game is not exactly new. If ID software had to get their panties in a knot over every FPS that gets released (cause face it, they are all similar), they'd be very busy. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 8:53 AM EDT |
[quote]It seems a little petty?{/quote] Does it seem a little petty when FSF or a software author insists that somebody abide by the provisions of the GPL? If you think so, then, at the very least, you are consistent. If not, then you are full of pre-processed nutrients. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 09, 2009 8:54 AM EDT |
If this review is any indication, http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/grid/wars.htm not only does B.C. have to deal with tons of prior art, but the improvements and innovations in GW2 make it, in my opinion, an original creation. This is what I loath about the artificial monopoly that is copyright: Its ambiguous. "What will this judge say I.P. is today, Bob?" "I don't know, Ken, but as with all Intellectual Property disputes, the safe bet is on the moneyed side." A review of "Against Intellectual Monopoly" by Michele Boldrin and David Levine, two daring professors of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. http://mises.org/story/3298 The book itself, gratis (and, I believe, libre) http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/againstfinal.ht... Or if you like something to hold in your hand http://www.mises.org/store/Against-Intellectual-Monopoly-P55... |
| jacog Feb 09, 2009 9:18 AM EDT |
dinotrac ... It looks to me like BC were hoping to milk their game for a lot longer, but sales were dropping. Instead of saying "well gee guys, the game is a bit long in the tooth, and maybe we need to rely on it less for money" they find someone to blame instead... and so they did. That is petty. There is no copyright being violated here either. And both reviews I read declare GridWars ultimately a superior game to that from which it got its inspiration. Also, if Geometry Wars were available for Linux (free or otherwise)... I doubt a clone would even exist. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 10:31 AM EDT |
Bob - No. They do not have to deal with any prior art. Prior art applies to patents only. And yes and no on the original creation bit. The improvements themselves are an original creation. However, when used in concert with the original code, artwork, artwork copied or heavily derived from the artwork, etc, they create a derived work. It's the same idea that the FSF pushes too forcefully when it complains about linking binary modules to GPL'd code. They are correct the combination of the GPL'd code plus the modules is a derived work and subject to the limitations of the GPL. The modules on their own, no matter how useless, are not. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 10:32 AM EDT |
jacog - What is the basis for your statement that no copyright is violated? |
| jacog Feb 09, 2009 10:44 AM EDT |
Because imitation, however unoriginal that may be, is not the same as using copyrighted material. Besides, Geometry Wars reminds me a lot of games made in the 80s by Jeff Minter. Here's a quote from the wikipedia page on him. "Fans of Minter's games have identified a number of distinctive elements common to his games. They are often arcade style shoot 'em ups. They often contain titular and/or in-game references demonstrating his fondness of ruminants (llamas, sheep, camels, etc.). Many of his programs also feature something of a psychedelic element, as in some of the earliest "light synthesizer" programs including his Trip-a-Tron." Now, correct me if I am wrong here... but besides the Llamas, the rest of those points all seem to apply very much to Geometry Wars. In fact, the subtitle for GW2 is "Retro Evolved", which tells me they were very much influenced by Minter's work. I am thinking in particular of Gridrunner: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRq6e1f85KY I think if Jeff Minter told them to pull their game because they are stepping on his IP, they'd think it was petty also. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 11:29 AM EDT |
>Because imitation, however unoriginal that may be, is not the same as using copyrighted material. Not true. Every hear of Bright Tunes Music Corp. v Harrisongs, Ltd? That case found that George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" violated Bright Tunes' copyrighted material in "He's so Fine." You do not need a note for note , line for line, etc copy to violate a copyright. You can be inspired by something, you can even make something very similar from the same inspiration, but imitation is another word for copying, and you need to be careful that you don't copy protectable elements or unprotectable elements that, together, for a protectable whole, |
| tuxchick Feb 09, 2009 11:45 AM EDT |
Dino, all creative works are copies of other creative works. There are a very tiny number of truly original creative works, and you can bet money that the ones sending the cease-and-desist notices are not the ones who created them. Some of the biggest bullies in entertainment are also the biggest thieves, like Disney. The Bright Tunes Music case is not a good example of a good copyright case-- it dragged on for years and years and years, and multiple appeals, and all it settled was that whoever is the most stubborn wins, and that verdicts are changeable according to mood, whim, phases of the moon, and whether the fiber drink is working or not. I'm with Sander-- a simple takedown notice should not, in itself, be sufficient. We've all seen how those have been abused, especially since the DMCA went into effect. There needs to be something substantial backing it up, such as actual proof, and a court order. Here is another example of Eye Pee Gone Mad, Barbie Sues Bratz: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/05/usa Y'all might recall how Barbie is a direct ripoff of a popular set of European adult dolls. That's right, Barbie is a cleaned-up tart: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hymowitz050302... Quoting: Lilli was modeled on — and I'm not making this up — a cartoon prostitute. Nor was she evidently perturbed by the fact that Lilli was sold in bars and tobacco shops to grown-up men who evidently were taken with her tight (removable) sweater and short (removable) skirt. Geometry Wars itself is hardly an original work, it's copy-n-paste elements of a zillion other games. Me, I think good copyright law is a good thing. But we lost any semblance of that years ago. |
| hkwint Feb 09, 2009 12:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:but imitation is another word for copying That means that all the instances of 'Boy loves girl, girl doesn't want boy, boy does a lot of effort and finally boy gets girl' are copyrighted if copyright is believed to be that broad. You can burn down half the library if imitation is copyright violation. So I wonder where the boundaries of copyright are. If the boundaries / borders are unknown than nobody can own copyright, because you cannot own something if the boundaries / borders are not clear. I assume that what Bob tries to tell is that the boundaries depend on who has the money. Quoting:Geometry Wars itself is hardly an original work, it's copy-n-paste elements of a zillion other games. There's research and development. Development is combining existing 'original' ideas. So I hope that copy & pasting is not forbidden because if that were the case development would stop to exist. Basically the same goes for music, almost all current popular songs feature accord schemes which have been used earlier. Mots of the time it depends on how much money is spend by the 'copyright holding' party if the can sue a deemed 'copyright violator' or not. The soundtrack of Mission Impossible is an example of the copyright holder throwing enough money at it, and the Youtube-baby dancing on Prince also. Of course, I agree you shouldn't be legally able to violate copyright by changing one note of a song or one word per page of an existing book. But recreating something from scratch like the makers of OS-games do a lot normally shouldn't be a copyright violation because if that's the case than the right in copyright is wrong, and it should be called 'copyrestriction' or better 'idea-restriction'. As far as I know copyright is not meant as idea-restriction; and moreover there's patents for the latter. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 1:50 PM EDT |
TC - You may not like Bright Tunes, but it is the law of the land and does make clear that copying need be neither conscious nor exact.. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 1:54 PM EDT |
Hans - Yes and no. For example, you can copy 'Remeo and Juliet" to your heart's content because Shakespeare's plays have long ago passed into the public domain. You can do things that are similar to other things so long as you don't copy them -- remembering that copy is not equal to exact. Copyright law is a funny thing. Technically, two people can independently create the exact same novel, word for word, without violating the law. The problem is proving that there was no copying done. That, btw, is the basis for "clean room" engineering efforts: You set up one team that develops specifications based on reverse engineering. You have another team that never gets access to the reverse-engineered item. They then implement the specs and, since they were never able to see the original, can not have copied it. |
| tuxchick Feb 09, 2009 2:26 PM EDT |
Heh, dino, I'd say the Bright Tunes case is a perfect example of how copyright law has zero relationship to anything even remotely close to 'exact.' But rather arbitrary, imprecise, and impossible to adhere to, so that creators are always at risk. It's wide open to abuse, which is the real subject of this thread. The law and process are flawed and getting worse, with the deck increasingly stacked in favor of plaintiffs. "Proving that there was no copying done" is the standard for defendants, while plaintiffs can issue takedown notices with no proof or meaningful legal foundation. Never mind if the defendant ultimately prevails, because the damage is already done--- winning ten or fifteen years later is hardly a victory. |
| dinotrac Feb 09, 2009 2:40 PM EDT |
TC - The DMCA safe harbor provisions do suck out loud. Hardly fair that material must be taken down "expeditiously" but must wait ten days to be restored (via the counter notice). |
| tracyanne Feb 09, 2009 5:06 PM EDT |
In actual fact there is no "IP" - what ever in the hell that means - infringement until the accuser proves there is. Until they define, and it's demonstrated that it is the case, there is no "IP" infringement. When it is demonstrated that something is infringing "IP" then the accused can change or remove the infringing material. Taking the Game off the list simply because they were told they infringe is wrong. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 09, 2009 5:26 PM EDT |
The "Law of the Land" isn't always the Law of the People. Time to go all postal on this kind of thing. Stand up for your rights. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 10, 2009 9:45 AM EDT |
I agree, Colonel, copyright (and patent, thanks for the correction Dino) cause more problems than they were created to solve. And people tell me anarchy can't work. Ha! Better than omni-archy! |
| gus3 Feb 10, 2009 11:03 AM EDT |
@Bob: Sorry to harsh your buzz, but I think the word you want is "panarchy". "Omni-" is a Latin derivation, not Greek. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 10, 2009 11:32 AM EDT |
Gus, I was being poetical. |
| tuxchick Feb 10, 2009 11:41 AM EDT |
Golden-archy. |
| techiem2 Feb 10, 2009 11:48 AM EDT |
Would you like fries with your taxes? |
| dinotrac Feb 10, 2009 11:49 AM EDT |
TC -- Boo. But tasty. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 10, 2009 11:56 AM EDT |
At least with Golden-archy, I can choose not to drink the high fructose corn syrup. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 10, 2009 1:38 PM EDT |
Archy is good, but can I still be a Colonel there? Doh The past couple of months have me heading back to my Hippie days and Hippie ways. Not like the Luddite Hippies but more of an embracing tech kind of Hippie. FOSS is good. Proprietary is much less good. Proprietary knowledge is no knowledge at all. |
| jdixon Feb 10, 2009 1:48 PM EDT |
> You may not like Bright Tunes, but it is the law of the land and does make clear that copying need be neither conscious nor exact.. You're familiar with the principle of "hard cases make bad law" I take it. I'd say this case qualifies. |
| dinotrac Feb 10, 2009 1:51 PM EDT |
jdixon - I'm not sure it's bad law. The alternative may have been worse. |
| gus3 Feb 10, 2009 1:54 PM EDT |
i am sure archy would be found near the high fructose corn syrup. |
| tuxchick Feb 10, 2009 1:56 PM EDT |
How is it good law? It did not set any useful precedent-- determining infringement is still arbitrary. That is not good law. |
| dinotrac Feb 10, 2009 2:32 PM EDT |
tc - "Arbitrary"? How? Because you have to consider the facts of the case? |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 10, 2009 2:59 PM EDT |
The only difference between "Variations on the Theme by Paganini" or "A Fifth of Beethovan" being perfectly fine with everyone, and "My Sweet Lord" being a crime, is arbitrary law. It is arbitrary, because the only reason one is right and the other wrong is because of a law. Did Bright Tunes demonstrate any harm? |
| jdixon Feb 10, 2009 3:37 PM EDT |
> The alternative may have been worse. I don't think so, but there is room for disagreement. > Did Bright Tunes demonstrate any harm? As I recall, the infringement was ruled unintentional, so the damages were greatly reduced. But that's from memory and should not be relied on. As a casual music listener, I don't find the songs at all similar, but that's me. Added: Apparently my memory isn't that good. The financial details of the case can be found here: http://abbeyrd.best.vwh.net/mysweet.htm |
| ColonelPanik Feb 10, 2009 4:06 PM EDT |
Scott is the law here! |
| dinotrac Feb 10, 2009 4:43 PM EDT |
Bob - The difference is not merely arbitrary law. The difference is that Paganini's stuff is in the public domain. You can't collect royalties on something you don't own any more than you can collect rent on a house you don't own. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 11, 2009 11:25 AM EDT |
> The difference is not merely arbitrary law. "Public domain" is another arbitrary law. All statute laws are arbitrary, because what was legal (or illegal) the day before they were enacted are illegal (or legal) the day after when the action itself has not changed one day to the next. On the Bright Tunes case, I've heard that someone did covers of the two songs, using the words of one to the music of the other (gotta love that 4/4 time!). If I could find those I would be very interested to finally have something concrete to compare. Sadly, in my head when I try to do the comparison I keep running into "My sweet lord, do lang do lang do lang..." and then having to clamp down on my over-active imagination. Some 40 years ago, I heard a song on the radio where at the end of the song the guitar riffs from "Satisfaction" played in the left ear, and "Day Tripper" in the right, while the theme and vocals from this song played out. I never learned the name of the song, and never heard it again, but it was beautifully done. It must have been, to remember it this long after. Yet, under strict copyright, they couldn't do it without permission from both Beatles and Rolling Stones. Ugh! |
| dinotrac Feb 11, 2009 12:35 PM EDT |
Bob - Then I hope you never buy any property, because that is arbitrary law, too. Why shouldn't your house be in the public domain? Why should I have your house? Hmmm. If I gather up the Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas branches, I could get a pretty good-sized little army of well-armed helpers who know how to use their weapons... |
| tuxchick Feb 11, 2009 1:52 PM EDT |
I think a better analogy is being prevented from building your house to look like someone else's house, because the style is their precious eye pee. In music you're using the same notes, chords, progressions, and keys as any other song. In home building you're following the same basic design elements and using the same materials. Though a home's primary purpose is not as a creative work, but a box to keep the rain off. Though when you talk about using copied riffs from other songs, it seems that hip-hop has been getting away with that from its inception. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 11, 2009 4:30 PM EDT |
Dino, Considering the SCOTUS decision concerning eminent domain a couple years ago, you are absolutely spot on! Completely, utterly, arbitrary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._New_London I was sorry to see the effort to have justice Sutor's family home seized to be converted into the "Lost Liberty Hotel" fall through, but at least the city council gave it a read. > well-armed helpers who know how to use their weapons... Have I ever mentioned the Free State Project? :^) TC, using particular themes may very well fall under the same general attitude as "fair use" does for the written word. Quoting, but not whole use. The Old Masters considered it flattery, which is why I (over-) use the example of "Variations on a Theme by Paganini". Paganini was quite pleased. |
| gus3 Feb 11, 2009 4:35 PM EDT |
@tc: IIRC, Rick James was none too pleased with M C Hammer. Likewise, Queen/David Bowie with Vanilla Ice. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 11, 2009 5:06 PM EDT |
Dino said "If I gather up the Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas branches, I could get a pretty good-sized little army of well-armed helpers who know how to use their weapons..." That group does not have a very good record when it comes to fighting... at least when it comes to winning. But y'all make your own selves happy, hear? |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 11, 2009 5:35 PM EDT |
> at least when it comes to winning. That's 'cause the tyrant Lincoln stopped England and France from coming in on the side of the good guys, with his consumate propaganda successes: the Gettysburg Address and Emancipation Proclamation. I'm half convinced that the insane move of attacking into Northern territory of the otherwise exquisite Lee was caused by a disgruntled future Federalist using a time machine and knowing with 20/20 hindsight exactly what to do to make the world turn against the South. But I digress... |
| dinotrac Feb 11, 2009 6:02 PM EDT |
CP -- Texas has a pretty good history in that regard. As I recall, Sam Houston needed less than an hour -- less than half an hour, I think -- to defeat Mexico's Santa Anna in the Battle of San Jacinto, securing Texas Independence. The "Louisiana Tigers" were fierce and feared fighters during the Civil War. The Union had more men, more weapons, more of everything. Can't blame the Tigers for that. As for Arkansas, hey -- somebody's got to terrify the livestock. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 11, 2009 6:31 PM EDT |
Remember the Alamo! Dino: I will remember to save those Dixie Cups. |
| gus3 Feb 11, 2009 7:45 PM EDT |
Didn't Houston's forces have some help from a teen prostitute keeping Santa Ana distracted until the rebels could take up their positions? |
| dinotrac Feb 11, 2009 8:43 PM EDT |
gus2 - Talk about well-laid plans. |
| ColonelPanik Feb 11, 2009 8:47 PM EDT |
gus3: Thank you. I will not mention the south rising again. |
| Bob_Robertson Feb 11, 2009 9:34 PM EDT |
Speaking of Texas, here's a talk concerning Martin van Buren, who was president when Texas rebelled against Mexico, and how he interfered with the annexation in order to prevent war with Mexico. http://mises.org/mp3/Pres/Pres11a.mp3 One of my favorite talks from that series. Funny, he doesn't mention any, ah, "distractions".... |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!