Re: RES: Where to put Open Transport Tycoon (openttd)
On 5/19/05, Michael K. Edwards <m.k.edwards@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Anyways, I've never advocated relying on the circulars
> > in place of the copyright act. I was just thinking that
> > the circulars explained some reasoning about the copyright
> > act that you seemed to be having difficulty with. This is
> > the "derivative and collective works are disjoint" idea which
> > you seem to have even though it's not supported by law.
>
> Still working on your proof by repeated assertion, are you?
> Collective works are not derivative works under copyright law, as I,
> Humberto, and Batist have proven to our own and each other's
> satisfaction, and the apparent satisfaction of all other active
> participants in this discussion, under the Berne Convention and under
> three otherwise widely divergent national implementations. The fact
> that you cannot distinguish between a set containing the element X and
> a set containing a collective work that incorporates X is not my
> problem.
You've failed to offer any authority for your assertion that
derivative and collective works are disjoint.
I agree that you have cited plenty of authority which shows
that they are different.
I've presented examples -- which you have apparently
agreed are legally valid -- where the same work is both
a collective work and a derivative work. You've asserted
that these are not valid examples of this concept, but
your "logic" escapes me.
> > I've not yet read the case summary to determine see what
> > it says about the literal copying issue.
>
> You should not have any difficulty in establishing the correctness of
> "no literal copying has taken place" with regard to the Palladium
> opinion by applying your eyeballs to it for ninety seconds or so,
> especially if you use a browser that can find the words "preexisting
> sounds" in its text.
It's the relevance I'm having problems with.
Palladium created literal copies of some music, without a license.
The court declared that these copies were derivatives of the original
and that Palladium did not have a license for them.
In the context of openttd, this would be analogous to creating
fresh copies of the game data which basically looked like and
acted like the original game.
But we're not talking about the game data, we're talking about
the game engine.
The game engine is to the game what a musical instrument
is to music. You use a musical instrument to play music
in much the same way you use a game engine to play the
game.
There might be some uniquely creative elements to some
musical instrument, which are copyrightable. Likewise,
there might be some uniquely creative elements in the game
engine which are copyrightable. We just haven't identified
any, yet.
--
Raul
Reply to: