Copyrights and Copycats

[Fearzone]

Is it just me or did Skyrim totally rip off Y's Seven?

I mean, both take place in lands where dragons are worshipped and feared as gods, and behind each boss there is an ancient stone monument with a scried symbol that confers special powers when gazed upon, but only the fated chosen one can receive these powers... and the dragons are now awakening... um... both have elevators that are stone platforms with crank shafts... and you have followers....

It CAN'T be coincidence.

/sarcasm.

 

[RA92]

Nicely done, Shamus.

 

[purf]

(Haha: Transmorphers [...] People who liked this also liked "The Day the Earth .. Stopped")

 

[Thaliur]

Great, now I feel an irresistible urge to play Steamtown...
Sounds a bit like a 3D Clonk remake. I love Clonk!

 

[vehystrix]

Ok so anyone know where (or if) I can find and play Steamtown? It sounds like a great game and I'd love to give it a try

 

[Scrustle]

I would really love to try Steamtown. It sounds awesome. But alas, a Google search seems to indicate that it is merely a fabricated and hypothetical example.

 

[Jordi]

A good lawyer could convince a similar jury that Digcraft is not a ripoff of Minecraft.

In fact, I think you just did.

I would hope that most games begin with the designer saying, "I like this idea, but I think I can do it better."

Digcraft uses bump-mapping, bloom effects, and particle effects to make a world of vibrant colors.

So Digcraft said "I like this Minecraft idea, but I think I can do it (graphically) better.". You might not care about graphics that much, but others do.

Anyway, it always completely baffles me that so many countries use trial-by-jury filled with people who have no idea what the fuck their talking (or hearing) about, rather than trained professionals.

I agree with the central tenets of the article though.

 

[draythefingerless]

Juris suck anyway. no one ever bothers to do homework while theyre juri, or cares for that matter, or knows anything relevant to the case.

As someone that recently served on a jury, I take offence.

The most important point against you here: Juries are not allowed, by penalty of law, to research the cases they are hearing. It is the job of the judge and the lawyers to present the issue, not of the juries to discover it for themselves. A juror that independently researches a case can be found in contempt of court, fined and possibly jailed.

take offense all you want, my generalization has basis. you are not the majority, unfortunately, and im sorry you took my words so literally to the point of including every single person whos ever been a juri into it. most people(thats a big MOST) hate juri duty and do lil as possible while theyre on it. and when i said research(badly worded, my bad), i mean listening to what the court is saying and understanding it, and making a well thought decision, instead of a "yeh whatever..guilty i guess".

 

[draythefingerless]

Originality is an absurd notion. I did not think Shamus was this naive.

Ideas and thought are all influenced and "ripped" of other ideas and thoughts, even once you cannot remember reading or seeing. Indeed, you can be pretty certain that someone else in the world has had your ideas before and the same insight. Indeed, with over 7 billion minds churning away every day, how can idea be thought of as new? Of course, most of these people have no way of setting these ideas in motion or getting them "copyrighted". I think some people need to check their privilege here.

The whole thing becomes a question of who have the most support or the most money to make something into "intellectual property", another absurd notion. Owning ideas is such a horrible concept it really makes my head spin. It would be funny, if it was not so sad.

It is not an absurd notion. to a more fundamental comparison, your DNA is very similar(99,999% similar) to every other human, but the differences in it, as lil as they are, as well as the small differences in the way you grew up, make you into an original and unique being. youre being a bit absolutist there in your definition of original just to make a poin. also, no one can own an idea. not in the civilized world. and btw, there is a BIG, BIG BIG difference between having a fluke of an idea and seeing that idea realized. 99% of the time, it will NOT be what you were thinking or most people thinking. very rarely can a human being formulate in the original idea a concrete complex and detailed image of what the final work will be. TLDR, your mind thinks abstractly and as such will not think up things as they are in reality

 

[krellen]

take offense all you want, my generalization has basis. you are not the majority, unfortunately, and im sorry you took my words so literally to the point of including every single person whos ever been a juri into it. most people(thats a big MOST) hate juri duty and do lil as possible while theyre on it. and when i said research(badly worded, my bad), i mean listening to what the court is saying and understanding it, and making a well thought decision, instead of a "yeh whatever..guilty i guess".

JurY, with a y. If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to learn how to spell, especially when someone you're conversing with has already shown you the correct spelling. And a person serving on a jury is a juror.

And you have no idea what you're talking about. People may not necessarily want to do jury duty, but the people I served with took the issue very seriously. There was no "yeah, whatevers" going on. We discussed the facts of the case - when we were allowed to, which is not until after all the facts were presented and we were sequestered for deliberation. We took the directions of the judge seriously. We discounted personal feelings and examined the facts.

There were people that didn't want to be there. They still took it seriously. We were deciding someone's fate. That's not something people take lightly.

 

[Simpsons Rule]

Shamus, I have written a reply to your article: http://clevermusings.net/2012/02/tiny-tower-v-dream-heights/

I do not agree with your assessment regarding NimbleBit's lack of legal recourse. It sounds like NimbleBit has the makings of a claim for copyright infringement.

Also, I believe that a jury comprised of non-video game players is plenty competent enough to decipher the difference between video game mechanics. I think you need to give jurors much more credit. There are areas of intellectual property law far more complicated where jurors successfully tackle incredibly complex subject matter.

 

[Therumancer]

Well part of the problem is that the law has yet to go about this in the right way. A problem with issues involving the gaming industry in general. Largely because nobody involved in a suit has had the brains to make the right kinds of demands or attacks... on pretty much any issue.

The point made about the jury seems like an insurmountable obstacle until you consider that even in a civil matter you have the right to demand a jury familiar with the subject matter, OR that the case be decided by a judge if such a thing is impossible.

Sort of like how a black guy involved in a civil action against a company based on the accusation that he was a victim of racism by whites, can object to an all white jury. Sometimes jury selection for civil cases can take a very long time if an agreement to have
a judge decide can't be reached and a very specific body of knowlege combined with neutrality towards the players involved in the case becomes nessicary.

I'm not an expert, and it wasn't the aspect of the legal system i studied, but I know the basics. Simply put what we need is for companies going up against something like Zynga to demand, much like a business-related arguement, that the Jury of their "peers" have detailed knowlege about gaming, it just hasn't happened yet. Granted this means Jury selection might take years, especially until the system becomes used to it, but sometimes that's what it takes. Civil courts have gotten better about coming up with jurors to sit in for contract disputes and other technical matters over the years, and really this is very similar to those kinds of business battles that come down to legal wording, understanding, and the cross examination of notaries and legal witnesses for their understandings.

Basically if we had Minecraft against either of the other games, demanding a judge, or an appropriate Jury is probably what Notch should do since his accusations of a knockoff are going to be based on gaming knowlege.

 

[stranamente]

The most important point against you here: Juries are not allowed, by penalty of law, to research the cases they are hearing. It is the job of the judge and the lawyers to present the issue, not of the juries to discover it for themselves. A juror that independently researches a case can be found in contempt of court, fined and possibly jailed.

This point is, for me, a big deficiency of the system.
While in Italy the judge has the duty and the powers to seek the truth, independently from what the lawyers decide or are able to present; in the jury system seems that what is judged is the skill of the lawyers, not the facts.

One thing is not to be influenced by external sources, another thing is to study and investigate the case, even by your own.

And while this is his job (and probably his vocation) for the judge, it's a duty for the jurors.

 

[Aureliano]

A nice take on the thorny issue of expanding the body of laws to take into account more aspects of intellectual property rights infringement.

And...yeah. Anything beyond a lawsuit that involves only experts and neutral parties sufficiently educated to actually make a decision not entirely based on the slickness of a lawyer really only pushes the ball further in the court of the people who can afford expensive lawyers. Those people unfortunately already have far too many rights in comparison to the rights of those of us who cannot afford as fancy of lawyers.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

Someone please make Steamtown. That game sounds awesome. I Googled it and was sad when I found out it wasn't a real game.

 

[McMullen]

Lately I've begun to think that, in the same way our knowledge of science has made it impossible to be a polymath anymore, the diversification and specialization of knowledge, professions, hobbies, and technology has made it impossible to have a jury or Congress that is qualified to decide on matters pertaining to those specialized areas. It's just one more way that an 18th Century constitution is fundamentally unable to create a government capable of dealing appropriately with 21st Century issues. Yeah we can amend the thing, but it's so difficult to do and so many amendments are needed.

I think we need a Constitution for the world that electricity, petroleum, and the internet have made. Overhaul copyright law, overhaul the voting system, overhaul how jurors are selected, overhaul who is permitted to decide on what in Congress.

Otherwise the insanity created when law and reality clash will only get worse.