On 8/16/05, Steve Walmsley <stevewalmsley[_at_]btinternet.com> wrote:
>
Keep in mind that I am not a lawyer and none of what I write can be taken as legal advice.
Your post comes from your perspective. It is likely that the game owner will offer a different version of what has happened. This forum is no place to examine the complex issues. Only court is the best place to present evidence where parties can examine.
> I have never charged for this software or made any profit from it of any
> kind. In fact, many users of the software have stated both publically and
> privately they would not have bought any Starfire materials if the program
> did not exist so the owner of the game has profited from my software. I
> don't mind this however because I have had fun creating it.
Unfortunately, your charity has nothing to do with copyright issue. Copyright law does not care how nice or mean you are.
> I pointed out on the mailing list that he could do what he liked with the
> new group in terms of rules changes, but that the reality of the situation
> was that vast majority of players used the rules that Starfire Assistant
> supported. If he created different rules for Third, no one would use them
> anyway. He therefore stated that he was banning any future updates to
> Starfire Assistant. If I produced any further patches, he would sue me for
> copyright infringement. This seemed incredibly vindictive as he was
> punishing his own players in an attempt to somehow get at me but I think he
> has reached the point of trying to prevent anyone playing original Third
> Edition because he believes people will therefore have no alternative but to
> play either Ultra Starfire or his new version of Third which will no doubt
> look a lot like Ultra Starfire :)
That is what copyright is all about - it is about control. If the game owner does not permit you to make more changes to his original work, that is it. Accept it and move on to other things.
It is not clear to me how much of your work is based on the game owner's original work. This is something that a court will look into to determine whether your work is considered as a derivative work from the game owner's original work.
> 3) There is no actual copying of the rules text anywhere in the program. The
> program just has functionality that supports the rules.
If this is wholly accurate, then you own copyright in your program and there is nothing the game owner can do to stop you.
> 4) He has stated that the existing v6.80 program is OK (presumably because
> of 1) above) but that the slightest bug fix or an non-Starfire related
> interface change will be a copyright violation. This seems to be complete
> nonsense to me although I am a layman.
If that v6.80 program is your own work that is completely independent of the game owner's original work, then it is not a copyright violation to make changes to your own program. In this case (I am just assuming that your version of the story is accurate), the game owner is just jealous of you.
> 5) He has said publicly that other people can create Starfire programs with
> optional rules if they also include support for the official rules but that
> this doesn't apply to me because he doesn't trust me. He also stated that
> Starfire Assistant would adversely affect his business. Apparently he is
> concerned that any optional rules I create will cause people not to buy the
> official rules. Whatever his beliefs, can he apply one rule to me and a
> different one for other people?
Given that the rules are not copyrightable, I don't see how he can prevent you from writing program.
> 6) Much of Starfire Assistant is management of resources, reporting
> functionality and manipulation of data. Can this type of thing be copyright?
Yes, the expression in the program is copyrightable but the process and algorithm in the program is not copyrightable. Anyone can look at the process and write a new program to do the same process. I assume that the process or algorithm is not patented.
> I would much welcome advice on my situation if I wanted to release an update
> to Starfire Assistant.
Again, this forum is not a good place to give advice because we are hearing only from one side. Plus, none of us has the time to examine all the works during the past 10 years and construct the genealogy of works.
> Is one option to change the names of everything Starfire related but leave
> the functionality. I can understand names being copyrighted but can you
> copyright a game rule or a game mechanic? Bearing in mind that none of this
> is for commercial purposes, if in the game a force beam causes 10 damage at
> range 5 and I create a pan-galactic gargle-blaster with the same firing
> characteristics, is that a copyright violation. How similar do rules on
> generation of star systems have to be before they are a copyright violation,
> etc.
Yes, changing names to avoid the association with Starfire is one way, assuming that the program that you wrote is your own independent work. Names can't be copyrighted but they can be trademarked. It does not matter if your intention is for non-commercial uses. That has nothing to do with copyright issue.
Even though the rules are themselves not copyrightable (see http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html for more explanation), the game owner can always threat to sue you even if he has no ground to support his position.
> This is a hobby with which I have a lot of fun and I feel it has been ruined
> by someone through spite rather than genuine concern over his business. Is
> there anything I can do??
Sometimes, the best way you can do is to forget it and move on to other things. That is one problem with copyright. It has no mercy for you. It can't feel mercy for you. It can't speak against injustice or selfishness.
> Oh and one last thing. he is based in the US and I am in the UK. Not sure if
> that makes a difference.
I think that it makes a big difference but I don't know anything about the copyright law in the UK. For example, in the U.S., the rules for playing a game are uncopyrigihtable. But, if the rules are copyrightable in the UK, the game owner can fly over to UK and sue you in the court of UK. Again, I don't know if rules are copyrightable in the UK.
Joseph Pietro Riolo
<josephpietrojeungriolo[_at_]gmail.com>
<riolo[_at_]voicenet.com>
Number of days left until 1-1-2019 when all knowledge of 1923 in the land of the U.S.A. will be freed from their copyright owners' prisons: 4,885
Public domain notice: I put all of my expressions in this post in the public domain. Received on Thu Aug 18 2005 - 01:25:01 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:55 GMT