Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Humberto Massa Guimarães <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br> wrote:
> De: Michael K. Edwards [mailto:m.k.edwards@gmail.com]
> >
> > The issue isn't functional cloning. It's the fact that a video
> > game is a "literary work" in the sense of having characters,
> > settings, plot lines, etc., and therefore can be infringed in the
> > non-literal sense of Micro Star v. FormGen -- even by a new
> > scenario written for the existing game engine!
>
> It seems (IMHO) that the issue here *is* functional cloning. The
> characters, the whole "mise en scene" of the game is in the *data*
> files. The game executable would function like a video player,
> presenting the data in the data files and interacting with the user.
> And *this* is exactly what is protected by art.6,III.
Again from Micro Star v. FormGen:
*fn5 We note that the N/I MAP files can only be used with D/N-3D. If
another game could use the MAP files to tell the story of a mousy
fellow who travels through a beige maze, killing vicious saltshakers
with paperclips, then the MAP files would not incorporate the
protected expression of D/N-3D because they would not be telling a
D/N-3D story.
The cloned game engine cannot, by the authors' own admission, be used
for any purpose other than to tell Transport Tycoon "stories". Even
if the openttd project were to create functional equivalents of all of
the artwork and all of the other material contained in the data files
from the original game, using alternate names for people and things,
they would have to demonstrate pretty convincingly that it wasn't just
a cover for encouraging recipients to rip off the original game's
artwork and "storyline".
Why would the burden of proof be on the openttd coders even if they
were to create replacement artwork and rename all of the tiles?
Because there's a clear and public record that copyright infringement
is part and parcel of their technique of cloning. The openttd engine
is not a generic game machine, it is a machine for creating Transport
Tycoon sequels, period.
> > I think you'll find, on review, that even the deliberate intent of
> > evoking the original is enough to create an infringing derivative
> > work. When I get a moment, I'll find the litigation associated
> > with "The Wind Done Gone".
>
> Just to reassert my point, with the data I have at the moment, I
> don't believe that the game executable does this more than mplayer
> evokes the content of copyrighted works. After all, if you want to
> play the game legally, you must have a legally-acquired copy of the
> original game to supply the artwork.
See the paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen cited in my response to
Raul. It's not the degree of indirection in reference to artworks,
it's the fact that the game experience plagiarizes protectable
expression from Transport Tycoon.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: