Re: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/16/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
I'm still dubious.
Yes, you're right that this appears to satisfy the same requirements
which were expressed about MicroStar. (And, you're right, I confused
FormGen and MicroStar in my last post.) However, that is not
the same thing as satisfying those requirements.
In particular, you've still not identified the creative elements from
the original game which openttd plagiarizes. Nor have you
identified how.
This might seem like verbal game playing, but if there are no limits
on this kind of thing then everything infringes on everything, which
clearly is not the case.
> > > 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.
My apologies, I was combining some statements you made with
statements made by someone else.
So: are anthologies "derivative works" or "collective works", or
something else?
> > > 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.
Ok, I was trying to make some sense of your claims, and had
been reduced to wild guessing. I think we agree that the
protections which are attributed to derivative works and the
protections which are attributed to collective works apply to
any work which needs those protections, regardless of whether
or not you admit that the work is a derivative or collective work.
Thanks,
--
Raul
Reply to: