Re: Copyright issues regarding fan computer assistant program for board game.

I thought this was a joke -- some law professor's draft of a multi-faceted, outlandish exam question. I don't understand the first thing about this game, except that it appears to be real -- you have to pay $50 for the new version. To the extent your facts are complete, there are at least these questions:

Copyright infringement
1. Are you copying any of Marvin's protected work in your program? 2. Does your program enable or facilitate unauthorized copying of any of Marvin's protected work?
3. To the extent your program is or enables a derivative of Marvin's protected work, were you authorized explicitly or tacitly to create that derivative work.

My impression is that the answers are no, no and yes; and that Marvin does not have a copyright infringement claim.

Trademark infringement
4. In the gaming community, is there any likelihood of consumer confusion between Startfire and Starfire Assistant? 5. Can Marvin allege that he's losing sales of the new edition because Starfire Assistant doesn't support it?

My impression is that the answers are no but maybe; and this is an interesting issue. If he can allege lost sales of the new version caused by the distribution of your program, he has a colorable claim of trademark dilution. I think he has a causation problem because the alleged infringement isn't causing the damages; but you could lose, and you're not making any money, so it would be stupid to take the risk.

This is a case that should settle. It was a symbiotic relationship, and unless I'm missing something, it is still a one-sum game. But if I'm wrong, you have maybe a thousand partisans who aren't spending $50 on the new game. $50,000 would buy a good lawyer if it couldn't buy the rights to the 3d Edition.

John Noble

At 5:30 PM -0400 8/16/05, Steve Walmsley wrote:
>I have become involved in an unusual situation for which I cannot find any
>relevant material on the internet. I hope that someone on this forum may be
>able to provide some advice.
>
>I play a game called Starfire, which consists of a paper set of rules, a
>hexmap and some counters. The game is complex but in general terms it is
>about exploring space, building an economy, meeting other races and fighting
>them. Players are required to generate their own pen and paper maps of the
>galaxy using system generation rules, keep paper-based economic records and
>design ships, etc. The hexmap and counters are used to resolve battles when
>the ships of two races meet in combat.
>
>About ten years ago I started using a computer program I developed to handle
>the system generation. When I mentioned this on the mailing list for the
>game a lot of people showed an interest so, with the full knowledge of the
>owner of the game, I started letting people have copies of the software. The
>software grew over the years until it handled almost all aspects of the game
>and become the de facto standard assistance program. My user base is at
>least in the high hundreds based on my private mail and probably in the low
>thousands. Much of the functionality was suggested by players posting in the
>official Starfire forums and involved discussion with the game's owner. The
>owner of the game even included a link on his website to direct people to
>the software. The software is now about 100Mb to install and has over 140
>screens. There is no instruction manual or help for the software, although
>3rd parties have written tutorials, and you need to buy Starfire in order to
>make use of it. An example of features can be found in the release notes at:
>
>www.starfireassistant.com/OldSA.htm
>
>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.
>
>About 3-4 years ago, the owner of the game decided to create a new version.
>Mainly because he had inherited the existing version from an earlier
>owner/designer and wanted to make his own changes. The existing version (3rd
>edition) was to be abandoned in favour of a new fourth edition. However, the
>new edition was viewed by many as inferior to the existing game and a schism
>developed in the Starfire community. My own preference is for third edition
>and my Starfire Assistant program continued to grow but stayed with the
>third edition rules. The game's owner stated publicly that he didn't want me
>to develop a program for 4th anyway as a professional software company was
>going to develop and sell one. That was over three years and so far they
>haven't produced anything.
>
>Based on the mailing list traffic more people were playing 3rd than
>switching to 4th and I didn't want 3rd to die, I offered to develop a new
>rule expansion for 3rd for free and let the owner approve it and sell it if
>he wished and take all the profits. Initially he wanted me to pay him to do
>this (even though I would make no money) because he thought it might impact
>the sales of fourth edition. I obviously refused but retstated my original
>offer and he accepted. I put together a group of about 30 like-minded people
>and we produced a new expansion called the Unified Tech Manual. That went on
>sale and is still selling. Starfire Assistant was updated to match it. We
>then started on a larger project, the unification and updating of all
>existing 3rdR rules into one large rulebook. Once again the agreement was
>that we would create the document and hand it over. If he liked it, he could
>sell it and keep the money. We just wanted the game to survive.
>
>Meanwhile 4th edition had been fairly heavily criticised and in response,
>the owner created a new update called Elite Starfire which was apparently an
>improvement but didn't change the minds of the 3rd edition players about
>which edition was better. So another update to the 4th edition rules called
>Ultra Starfire was created and was due about the same time as the 3rd
>edition Unified Rules.
>
>At this point, the game owner's Marvin (easier than keep calling him the
>game's owner <G>) said we weren't going fast enough with our work, even
>though we were 90% complete, doing it as unpaid volunteers and he originally
>wanted to kill 3rd edition anyway. He therefore said he was going to join
>our design group. As the reason the group existed was because none of us
>liked the way he designed games, conflict within the group soon ensued. He
>declared he thought the new product was not going to be up to his standards
>and he should take over. We pointed out that 1) He hadn't made a single
>correction to the previous product. 2) He had final approval anyway. 3) None
>of this was costing him money or time. 4) The reason we were doing this was
>for people who didn't agree with his style of game design. Nevertheless he
>declared he was taking over. An almighty bust-up followed with almost all of
>the group leaving (including me) and stating that Marvin couldn't use any of
>our original work. He also caused all of this upset without having his own
>copy of the work we had done so he was left with nothing. Not the most
>intelligent business decision I have ever witnessed.
>
>He made a statement on the public Starfire list saying the work we had done
>was terrible and that he was forming a new group to do it all over again. I
>believe we had produced a very good document so I publicly offered him $1000
>to release the so-called terrible work for free and I would throw in
>everything we had done so he could get a big head start on his own version.
>He refused. It was a stalemate. He had copyright on the original material on
>which we had based the new ruleset so we couldn't release it and we had
>copyright on the work we had done to improve it so he couldn't use it
>either. That situation remains unresolved but I cannot see it changing due
>to personal animosity between myself and Marvin
>
>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 :)
>
>I was extremely angry with this state of affairs but didn't want to get into
>a legal fight. For the last six months I have left well alone and continued
>to use Starfire Assistant at home only and made no attempt to distribute it.
>However, I continue to get pressure for updates from my user base and I do
>have a lot of fun updating the program and pleasure from satisfied users,
>even if there is no monetary reward. Now I look back on this with a calmer
>head, Marvin seems to be on sticky ground and I am wondering whether to push
>the issue.
>
>I have little knowledge of copyright law but the key points seem to be:
>
>1) The program has been around for about 10 years and has been officialy
>recognised by the games owner to the extent that he provided the copyright
>text on the opening splash screen, has provided his own suggestions for
>interface improvement and had a link on the official Starfire website to the
>Starfire Assistant website.
>
>2) Any user of the program will need to buy the Starfire rules to make use
>of it.
>
>3) There is no actual copying of the rules text anywhere in the program. The
>program just has functionality that supports the rules.
>
>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.
>
>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?
>
>6) Much of Starfire Assistant is management of resources, reporting
>functionality and manipulation of data. Can this type of thing be copyright?
>
>I would much welcome advice on my situation if I wanted to release an update
>to Starfire Assistant.
>
>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.
>
>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??
>
>Oh and one last thing. he is based in the US and I am in the UK. Not sure if
>that makes a difference.
>
>Steve Walmsley
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>#############################################################
>This message is sent to you because you are subscribed to
> the mailing list <CNI-COPYRIGHT[_at_]cni.org>.
>To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <CNI-COPYRIGHT-off[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-digest[_at_]cni.org>
>To switch to the INDEX mode, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-index[_at_]cni.org>
>To postpone your subscription, E-mail to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-null[_at_]cni.org>
>Send administrative queries to <CNI-COPYRIGHT-request[_at_]cni.org>
>
>Visit the CNI-COPYRIGHT e-mail list archive at
><https://mail2.cni.org/Lists/CNI-COPYRIGHT/>.
Received on Thu Aug 18 2005 - 01:25:01 GMT