🎉 Celebrating 25 Years of GameDev.net! 🎉
Not many can claim 25 years on the Internet! Join us in celebrating this milestone. Learn more about our history, and thank you for being a part of our community!
Hasbro suit ribbon campaign (con't)
Author
We seem to have filled up the last thread? My new post isn''t showing up there for me -- perhaps the bulletin board here only does 9 pages and no more.
**
Squidi said:
>"Destroy all rocks" is indeed an idea, and you can make a
>game that involves it. But you can''t make a game that
>involves shooting asteroids which split into little
>asteroids when shot, with a triangular ship that rotates,
>thrusts, and shoots - with that as the single and primary
>goal for the level.
I''m pretty much just repeating myself at this point, but I still fail to see how this is any different than modern games. In Duke Nukem (and many other FPSes post-Wolf and Doom) you are playing a game that involves shooting aliens which gib and die when shot, with a human male that rotates, walks and shoots - with collecting some form of a key to open an exit as the primary goal for the level.
I''m not suggesting, of course, that Duke Nukem should be in hot water. Companies have a history of creating games very much like earlier games with incremental improvements. Despite its many faults, Atari understood this, which is why they never made a real attempt to go after people making retro-game clones. Now Hasbro has bought up what was left of Atari and is using that to bully other developers.
In some cases, I agree that there is an open and shut case that a game is a rights infringement. In many other situations, I think the case is either far less clear or downright frivolous.
Do you really want to work in a game development industry that has to worry about this? Hasbro winning could very well start the industry on to a slippery slope where more and more techniques that designers take for granted are considered the property of someone else and can''t be used. This is not limited to the games industry, either. There''s been a lot of ill will in technical circles related to Internet/Web patents as of late, with Amazon.com being a particularly bad offender. Its just going to get worse and worse unless consumers and/or others in the industry take a stand.
Unless you want to live in a world where only the huge companies can put up the legal fees it will take to fight off every ridiculous claim against you or your (theoretical) small/mid-sized business, you have to fight each one of these issues as they pop up. And believe me, now that there''s so much money involved in the Internet (and in games, for that matter) these issues are going to be popping up more and more.
I made several replies to the other thread, but they are forever lost on page 10 I guess.
Oh well, I''m not going to risk wasting anymore time on this. ;-)
Scott
Oh well, I''m not going to risk wasting anymore time on this. ;-)
Scott
Scott, we''re going to miss you. NOT. 
Did anybody see the article about game economics at the Adreneline Vault? http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=fathom7&page=1
He talks about barriers to entry for small companies, among other things. I think this is a very important issue to game developers. Not all of us want to work for Hasbro or Westwood. Some of us want to write piddly little games that make a decent living and we don''t have to give up our independence.
This outlawing of small arcade games is a dangerous trend, because what is left for the small independent developer to write? Creativity is all very well and good, but in the mean time, you''ve got to put bread on the table. Things like top-down shooters, tank battles and falling bricks are the mainstay of the small independent developer.
Which is, no doubt, why Hasbro wants to take them away from us.
Diana
Did anybody see the article about game economics at the Adreneline Vault? http://www.avault.com/articles/getarticle.asp?name=fathom7&page=1
He talks about barriers to entry for small companies, among other things. I think this is a very important issue to game developers. Not all of us want to work for Hasbro or Westwood. Some of us want to write piddly little games that make a decent living and we don''t have to give up our independence.
This outlawing of small arcade games is a dangerous trend, because what is left for the small independent developer to write? Creativity is all very well and good, but in the mean time, you''ve got to put bread on the table. Things like top-down shooters, tank battles and falling bricks are the mainstay of the small independent developer.
Which is, no doubt, why Hasbro wants to take them away from us.
Diana
quote: Original post by MaxNukem
Oh well, I''m not going to risk wasting anymore time on this. ;-)
Scott
you keep saying that, and yet, the replies keep a commin''
I made this post in the other topic, but it never appeared, so here it is:
QUOTE:
"Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression, not the ideas or facts upon which the expression is based. For example, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars. "
END QUOTE
Although many of these games are similiar in concept, you cannot sue because someone has similiar gameplay. Hasbro does not have the right to sue companies because their game concept is similiar.
This suit is not about protecting work, its about a big bully of a company suing small developers for making similiar games.
--TheGoop
QUOTE:
"Copyright shelters only fixed, original and creative expression, not the ideas or facts upon which the expression is based. For example, copyright may protect a particular song, novel or computer game about a romance in space, but it cannot protect the underlying idea of having a love affair among the stars. "
END QUOTE
Although many of these games are similiar in concept, you cannot sue because someone has similiar gameplay. Hasbro does not have the right to sue companies because their game concept is similiar.
This suit is not about protecting work, its about a big bully of a company suing small developers for making similiar games.
--TheGoop
I want to put to rest one misconception about copyright law.
Scott and Squidi asserted that if just one level of a game is similar in sequences and objective to the entirety of a previous game (despite numerous differences in graphics, physics model, player capabilities, sound, etc.), then that game is infringing the copyright of the previous game.
I have investigated this claim today and found it to be incorrect. I''m sorry I can''t offer more argument or details, but I don''t want to jeopardize my attorney/client privelege.
BTW, defandants'' response is due Monday. I will post any interesting stuff from those if I am permitted to.
Scott and Squidi asserted that if just one level of a game is similar in sequences and objective to the entirety of a previous game (despite numerous differences in graphics, physics model, player capabilities, sound, etc.), then that game is infringing the copyright of the previous game.
I have investigated this claim today and found it to be incorrect. I''m sorry I can''t offer more argument or details, but I don''t want to jeopardize my attorney/client privelege.
BTW, defandants'' response is due Monday. I will post any interesting stuff from those if I am permitted to.
dgruber:
"Creativity is all very well and good, but..."
I''m offended. Creativity is so damn important, it ceases to be funny. If you aren''t bringing anything new to the table, get the hell away from my table. It is statements like that which prove to me that Hasbro isn''t the number one threat to small developers....small developers are.
I don''t care if these crappy little games are the mainstay. They suck. That lack creativity and originality. If you want to talk about the role of the independent developer in today''s industry, I have A LOT to say, but I think it would be better suited for a new thread.
Speaking of which, it looks like the main thread is fixed.
"Creativity is all very well and good, but..."
I''m offended. Creativity is so damn important, it ceases to be funny. If you aren''t bringing anything new to the table, get the hell away from my table. It is statements like that which prove to me that Hasbro isn''t the number one threat to small developers....small developers are.
I don''t care if these crappy little games are the mainstay. They suck. That lack creativity and originality. If you want to talk about the role of the independent developer in today''s industry, I have A LOT to say, but I think it would be better suited for a new thread.
Speaking of which, it looks like the main thread is fixed.
Squidi, you can think retro games suck all you want. That doesnt mean that they cant continue to be made and sold by individuals who are using their OWN code and their OWN art, and their OWN sound and music.
That is the EXACT same thing as people writing their simple stories, based on the same plots of other ones and submitting them to Boys Life, or other starter magazines. The world does NOT revolve on only "unique" ideas, as has been shown by all the other games that would be equally in "copyright infringement" if Hasbro had a case on those basics.
The saying "there is nothing new under the sun" is a popular one for a reason.
-Geoff
That is the EXACT same thing as people writing their simple stories, based on the same plots of other ones and submitting them to Boys Life, or other starter magazines. The world does NOT revolve on only "unique" ideas, as has been shown by all the other games that would be equally in "copyright infringement" if Hasbro had a case on those basics.
The saying "there is nothing new under the sun" is a popular one for a reason.
-Geoff
Hasbro Announces New Legal Games
Hasbro Interactive has filed suit in federal courts against eGames, GT Interactive, Xtreme Games, MVP Software, Webfoot Technologies, and Varcon Systems for copyright infringement. The problem that they are suing all of these companies over is that they all distribute versions of classic games that Hasbro owns the rights to. The classic arcade games that have been cloned and are mentioned explicitly in the lawsuit are Pac-Man, Centipede, Asteroids, and Tetris.
There is one major problem with Hasbro''s lawsuit. You see, for this kind of lawsuit to work, you would have to vigorously defend the copyright. Hasbro hasn''t always been the copyright holder, and the previous holders (Atari, Namco, and others) did not pursue violations of their copyright. The problem was at least when Asteroids and Pac-Man were developed that copyright law for computer software was not very clear. The legal gray areas were cleared up in the early eighties, but not before hundreds of near identical clones ([Noun]-oids, [Consonant Other Than "P"]ac-Man, and that''s just the ones without creative names) of popular arcade games were made for a wide variety of systems. From there I only have conjecture, but I suspect that financial problems that plagued the industry in 1984 and the sheer scope of trying to deal with these copycats prevented many companies from defending their copyright.
And then there''s Tetris. I don''t see how Hasbro is going to even begin to try to control Tetris clones given the chaos surrounding the rights to the original game. The legal mire that is the ownership of Tetris is a store of lies, deception, and communist bureaucracy. The best place to start is at the beginning with Alexey Pazhitnov writing the game in the mid-80''s and allowing it be spread around for free since he wouldn''t make any money for it under the Soviet rule anyway. A copy of the game eventually finds it''s way to Hungary where several programmers ported it to various platforms. A British entrepreneur called Robert Stein got hold of one of these versions and saw the potential for making serious money. He began to work his way through the bureaucratic minefield to get Pazhitnov to sell him the rights to Tetris, but prematurely sold the rights himself to Spectrum Holobyte. As it turns out Stein couldn''t get Pazhitnov to sell right away, but a PC version was released quickly and it become a monster success. As it turns out, Stein was eventually able to form an agreement with a company called ELORG formed in Moscow to deal with Tetris, though it is only for computer versions, no consoles and no arcade games. However, at this point chaos truly breaks loose as Spectrum Holobyte licenses the title for arcade games and console game to a company in Japan, while Stein gives the same licenses to Atari in the US. Eventually the Japanese version is picked up by Nintendo and it sets off a lawsuit that drags on for five years regarding the rights of console manufacturers to limit the development of games for their platforms (and is yet another long story). Eventually last year, some of the issues were resolved and a company known creatively as The Tetris Company was formed to try and get Pazhitnov some of his fair share of the millions (perhaps billions) that Tetris generated. Their first action was a look-and-feel lawsuit against some people who made Tetris clones, but as far as I can tell that hasn''t succeeded. I don''t know what the legal basis of Hasbro''s claim is, but they could easily tie up the courts for months on just this one title.
I don''t know where Hasbro even things that they might have the remotest possibility of this lawsuit succeeding. The damage to the copyrights was done in most of these cases over twenty years ago and it''s a bit late to be trying to close the barn door now. Even worse, it''s always possible that the judge may rule that many of these titles have been copied so often and without being contested that they are part of the public domain and that would be a real disaster for Hasbro. This is one legal battle that''s going to be going on for some time.
Who was that masked man....?
Hasbro Interactive has filed suit in federal courts against eGames, GT Interactive, Xtreme Games, MVP Software, Webfoot Technologies, and Varcon Systems for copyright infringement. The problem that they are suing all of these companies over is that they all distribute versions of classic games that Hasbro owns the rights to. The classic arcade games that have been cloned and are mentioned explicitly in the lawsuit are Pac-Man, Centipede, Asteroids, and Tetris.
There is one major problem with Hasbro''s lawsuit. You see, for this kind of lawsuit to work, you would have to vigorously defend the copyright. Hasbro hasn''t always been the copyright holder, and the previous holders (Atari, Namco, and others) did not pursue violations of their copyright. The problem was at least when Asteroids and Pac-Man were developed that copyright law for computer software was not very clear. The legal gray areas were cleared up in the early eighties, but not before hundreds of near identical clones ([Noun]-oids, [Consonant Other Than "P"]ac-Man, and that''s just the ones without creative names) of popular arcade games were made for a wide variety of systems. From there I only have conjecture, but I suspect that financial problems that plagued the industry in 1984 and the sheer scope of trying to deal with these copycats prevented many companies from defending their copyright.
And then there''s Tetris. I don''t see how Hasbro is going to even begin to try to control Tetris clones given the chaos surrounding the rights to the original game. The legal mire that is the ownership of Tetris is a store of lies, deception, and communist bureaucracy. The best place to start is at the beginning with Alexey Pazhitnov writing the game in the mid-80''s and allowing it be spread around for free since he wouldn''t make any money for it under the Soviet rule anyway. A copy of the game eventually finds it''s way to Hungary where several programmers ported it to various platforms. A British entrepreneur called Robert Stein got hold of one of these versions and saw the potential for making serious money. He began to work his way through the bureaucratic minefield to get Pazhitnov to sell him the rights to Tetris, but prematurely sold the rights himself to Spectrum Holobyte. As it turns out Stein couldn''t get Pazhitnov to sell right away, but a PC version was released quickly and it become a monster success. As it turns out, Stein was eventually able to form an agreement with a company called ELORG formed in Moscow to deal with Tetris, though it is only for computer versions, no consoles and no arcade games. However, at this point chaos truly breaks loose as Spectrum Holobyte licenses the title for arcade games and console game to a company in Japan, while Stein gives the same licenses to Atari in the US. Eventually the Japanese version is picked up by Nintendo and it sets off a lawsuit that drags on for five years regarding the rights of console manufacturers to limit the development of games for their platforms (and is yet another long story). Eventually last year, some of the issues were resolved and a company known creatively as The Tetris Company was formed to try and get Pazhitnov some of his fair share of the millions (perhaps billions) that Tetris generated. Their first action was a look-and-feel lawsuit against some people who made Tetris clones, but as far as I can tell that hasn''t succeeded. I don''t know what the legal basis of Hasbro''s claim is, but they could easily tie up the courts for months on just this one title.
I don''t know where Hasbro even things that they might have the remotest possibility of this lawsuit succeeding. The damage to the copyrights was done in most of these cases over twenty years ago and it''s a bit late to be trying to close the barn door now. Even worse, it''s always possible that the judge may rule that many of these titles have been copied so often and without being contested that they are part of the public domain and that would be a real disaster for Hasbro. This is one legal battle that''s going to be going on for some time.
Who was that masked man....?
Since the thread problem is now fixed, we need to close one of these, so I choose this one
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
