Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Raul Miller <moth.debian@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
Have you read any of the OpenTTD web site? Here's a couple of
snippets from the "About" page:
<quote>
An open source clone of the Microprose game "Transport Tycoon Deluxe".
OpenTTD is modeled after the original Transport Tycoon game by Chris
Sawyer and enhances the game experience dramatically. Many features
were inspired by TTDPatch while others are original.
Significant enhancements
=========
- autorail build tool
- canals/shiplifts
- larger stations
- non-uniform stations
...
</quote>
This is precisely the relationship that a game sequel bears to the original.
> 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.
You still haven't read Micro Star v. FormGen, have you? For one
thing, you have Micro Star and FormGen backwards. Micro Star
published a collection of third-party-authored scenarios for FormGen's
Duke Nukem 3-D game engine. No "modified game", in the sense of a
tweaked game engine, and no issue of "faithful to the original". "The
work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself ..."
> > > > 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 continue not to understand the meaning of "derivative work", and
you continue to exhibit that non-understanding with every message you
write on the topic. You also continue to misrepresent my arguments --
where did you get a third disjoint set "anthologies"? -- and to vastly
overstate the success of your "countering" anything.
> > > 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.
Raul, a work made by collecting X, Y, and Z is not a derivative work
of X. Not even if the "selection and arrangement" involved is
original enough to be copyrightable, and a fortiori if it is not (as
in the case of Quagga + Net-SNMP + libssl, an obvious combination
(given the text of each) if ever I saw one). Assert it to your dying
day, that's still not what the phrase "derivative work" means in
modern jurisprudence, anywhere in the world.
[snip]
> > 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?
Talk about false dilemmas. All copyright holders in the encyclopaedia
and its constituent works have a cause of action for copyright
infringement in the event of an unauthorized translation. If the
copyrighted selection and arrangement of the original has been
substantially copied into the translation, then the translation
infringes the copyright in the collective work.
Consider the vanishingly unlikely case that some Idiot X set out to
systematically authorize "derivative works" of his encyclopedia (as
opposed to some concrete category such as translations, abridgments,
or adaptation into a Serious Screenplay). And suppose that Publisher
Y obtains the necessary rights with respect to the individual
components and publishes an abridged, translated encyclopaedia.
Now suppose that Idiot X sues Publisher Y on a perversion of the
theory that I articulated above -- the abridged, translated version is
not a "derivative work" of the original, it's a new "collective work"
that is outside the scope of the license grant and therefore infringes
Idiot X's copyright. Of course Idiot X is going to lose, because the
selection-and-arrangement-creative-expression which has been copied
from the original has been abridged on the way, and so to within a
reasonable standard the s-a-a-c-e of the abridged, translated version
is indeed a "derivative work" of the portion of the original on which
Idiot X holds copyright.
But that fundamentally doesn't change the fact that the abridged,
translated version is a collective work, and that the scope of
Publisher Y's rights in it is limited to the creative expression
contained in its selection and arrangement, over and above the part
that was copied from Idiot X's work. Had Publisher Y instead adapted
the work into a Serious Screenplay, thereby creating an integral work,
_that_ would be a true "derivative work" of the original -- and
Publisher Y would be entitled to the abstraction-filtration-comparison
standard of similarity in judging whether a movie that resembled Drama
Encyclopaediae infringes the Serious Screenplay.
Cheers,
- Michael
Reply to: