Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
> > So where is the plagarism? How does your "siphon off the
> > commercial potential" work in this case?
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> Would you like the very paragraph from Micro Star v. FormGen?
...
> radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create
> sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740
> (11th Cir. 1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely
> sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's
> fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the
> same reason, even if it contained no pictures.*fn5
>
> And this is every bit as true when the infringing work is a clone of
> the game engine as when it is a game scenario.
In what way is this game engine clone a sequel to the original?
It lets you play the original. In concept, it could let you play a sequel.
Or, it could let you play an entirely different game. But no one has
presented any reason to think that openttd represents a sequel.
This is distinct from the FormGen case, which did represent
a sequel. At "performance time", the FormGen modified game
presented original MicroStar content together with FormGen
content. It was not faithful to the original, it was a derivative
work.
> > > If you understood the meaning of "derivative work" -- as you have
> > > conclusively demonstrated elsewhere that you do not -- you would have
> > > no difficulty identifying those elements.
> >
> > This ad hominem approach of yours is getting annoying.
>
> It's a simple statement of fact. You do not understand the meaning of
> "derivative work". You have conclusively demonstrated this in the
> course of the GPL debate.
You mean when I countered your false claim that derivative works,
collective works and anthologies form disjoint sets?
I'm sorry, I'm still not convinced.
> > You've presented cases which show that you do not believe in your
> > own assertions about what derivative works mean. Specifically,
> > you've claimed that derivative works are disjoint from collecitive
> > works and anthologies, but you've also stated that the same work
> > can be both a derivative work and an anthology. Until you can
> > present a consistent view of your own beliefs, I cannot take
> > seriously your critiques of my understanding.
>
> Bullshit yourself if you like, but I doubt that anyone else is buying.
> I have explained how a derivative work and a collection / collective
> work / anthology differ, exhibited an example which is an anthology
> _of_ two derivative works (not "a derivative work and an anthology"),
> and cited case law out the yin-yang.
I have never claimed that they do not differ. I've disputed your
assertion that they are disjoint.
I've also disputed conclusions you've drawn which were based
on this assertion that they are disjoint.
> The two participants in this
> discussion who do have legal qualifications (Humberto and Batist) have
> agreed that the two categories are disjoint in their respective
> jurisdictions -- meaning that a grant of license to create a
> derivative work of X does not grant license to anthologize it, and
> vice versa.
"Disjoint" and "Different" are two very different concepts.
Sets are different if there are elements in one set which are not
in the other.
Sets are disjoint if there are no elements in common between the
sets.
Your observation that derivative and collective works are different do
not show that they are disjoint.
> Your latest example of a revised edition of an encyclopedia is just as
> easily disposed of. It's a collective work. That's because what's
> protected about it, as opposed to what's protected about the articles
> it contains, is the creative choices involved in the selection and
> arrangement of its contents. Note that there is a sense in which that
> bit of creative expression is itself derived from the
> selection-and-arrangement expression in the previous edition --
> namely, that copyright in the 2005 edition doesn't extend the life of
> the copyright in the 2004 edition.
Are you claiming now that copyright law does not grant derivative
protections (for example, protection when the work is translated to
another language) to the encyclopaedia because it is a collective
work?
If not, the above does in any way show that these concepts are
disjoint.
--
Raul
Reply to: