Slashdot Mirror

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Can I copyright the name of my band?
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information.

What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced, distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner.

Can I copyright the name of my band?
No. Names are not protected by copyright law. Some names may be protected under trademark law. Contact the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, 800-786-9199, for further information.

Given that the copy only lasts as long as the software is in use, and cannot be readily separated from the copy on disk, and also that it is absolutely necessary to create to actually use the software, this should be considered purely part of the technological process of viewing the software.

You've basically paraphrased what USA law has to say on the matter:

it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided [...] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program

How judges can rule that EULAs have a leg to stand on is beyond me. Copies made in the process of using software are not covered by copyright. The law seems quite clear on the matter.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
---
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

  107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
You would assume that anyone in a college setting is probably exploring a lot of interest... it could arguably be argued that downloading copyrighted music is similar in nature to going to a music appreciation class and/or may actually be a part of such a class... all things that would be considered one of the great threes of fair use: teaching, scholarship, and research. If you are a college student and get harrassed by the RIAA I strongly advise you to seek a lawyer and reasons why what you are doing is fair use. Also, if you have not yet done so, sign up for some theater and music appreciation classes. I learned a lot in those classes in college. Actually, they got me started towards getting a minor in theater that I eventually got before I graduated with my main major in art.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
---
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

  107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include --

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
You would assume that anyone in a college setting is probably exploring a lot of interest... it could arguably be argued that downloading copyrighted music is similar in nature to going to a music appreciation class and/or may actually be a part of such a class... all things that would be considered one of the great threes of fair use: teaching, scholarship, and research. If you are a college student and get harrassed by the RIAA I strongly advise you to seek a lawyer and reasons why what you are doing is fair use. Also, if you have not yet done so, sign up for some theater and music appreciation classes. I learned a lot in those classes in college. Actually, they got me started towards getting a minor in theater that I eventually got before I graduated with my main major in art.

a service provider shall not be liable to any person for any claim based on the service provider's good faith disabling of access to, or removal of, material or activity claimed to be infringing or based on facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent, regardless of whether the material or activity is ultimately determined to be infringing.

I did RTFA but I haven't yet read the text of the two bills ...

I suddenly realize why SlashDot does not work so well. I do not wish to discuss issues in detail, since they are far from simple and already discussed in several papers available on the net. Furthermore, why bother since there is a significant chance that this contribution will simply be ignored, even though I probably have some unusual expertise on this very issue, particularly relevant to the readership of slashdot, since I worked on this as an expert on free software and other intangible resources (http://www.datcha.net/orphan/oeuvres-orphelines-BLang.pdf, not yet translated to English).

I did read the bill (well, the 2006 version only) as well as a good part of the very long and excellent investigation lead by the Register of Copyright http://www.copyright.gov/orphan/, including replies from various parties. I also know much of the legislation prepared or effective in other countries, as well as relevant parts of international treaties (see the bibliography at http://www.datcha.net/orphan/, the page mixes English and French, but most references are in English). One good introduction is the IRIS paper by Stef van Gompel available in several languages, or the much longer and technical "Report on Orphan Works".

There is a lot more to the orphan works problem than meets the eye. I would simply comment that, though the US legislative proposal could possibly be improved, it seems one of the best I have seen around the world (and I do not usually praise US IP legislation, except for the Constitution, much ignored nowadays). For one thing it should significantly improve access to and preservation of cultural heritage. It seems also one of the least dangerous systems for the development of free resources, whether software or other. But as usual, the devil may also hide in details, and much depends on how judges will actually use the text (individuals and corporations are hardly on equal footing).

The important issue here is to draft a law that can take over the exclusive rights of the author (or of whoever owns them), while staying in agreement with international treaties (Berne Convention, WIPO copyright treaty WCT, WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty WPPT, WTO TRIPS agreement). One basic rule is that ownership of exclusive rights must be granted without formalities, so that systematic registration and taxes are out of question for the present time (there were good reasons for this, before the Internet, but it is most likely they are much less valid in the Internet world). The other basic rule is the so called tree step test, also enforced by thoses treaties, that essentially limits any legal exception to the exclusive rights of authors. The US proposal does a fairly good job of meeting the two constraints, and that is not easy.

A very important aspect of the three step test is that any exception to exclusive rights should "not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder." A crucial point is the determination of what is "normal exploitation". For many people, it only means "extracting money from users". But, in the Internet world, they are many other normal ways of exploiting works, such as free access which, though not directly commercial, may still have economic motivations (other than advertising). As noted by such international legal experts as M. Ficsor (who had DRM in mind), any change in the exploitation models permitted by technology implies a change in the interpretation of these rules. So any acceptable legal solution to the orphan works problem is directly linked to the recognition of the free dissemination models of exploitation. Indeed, in France, they are attempting to promote a much different solution, not respecting t

this is a royalty-free license that will allow third parties to publish products using the rules developed by WotC

Third parties are already allowed, by law, to publish products using the rules developed by WotC

From the US Copyright Law Factsheet on Games:

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

from: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
===
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.

To register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:

A completed application form. If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, we recommend using Form TX, which can be used to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, Form VA should be used.
A nonrefundable filing fee (Current Fees)
A deposit of the material to be registered. The deposit requirements will vary depending on whether the work has been published at the time of registration.
If the game is published, the proper deposit is one complete copy of the work. If, however, the game is published in a box larger than 12 x 24 x 6 inches (or a total of 1,728 cubic inches) then identifying material must be submitted in lieu of the entire game. (See "identifying material" below). If the game is published and contains fewer than three 3-dimensional elements, then identifying material for those parts must be submitted in lieu of those parts.

If the game is unpublished, either one copy of the game or identifying material should be deposited.

Identifying material deposited to represent the game or its 3-dimensional parts shall usually consist of photographs, photostats, slides, drawings, or other 2-dimensional representations of the work. The identifying material shall include as many pieces as necessary to show the entire copyrightable content of the work, including the copyright notice if it appears on the work. All pieces of identifying material other than transparencies must be no less than 3 x 3 inches in size, and not more than 9 x 12 inches, but preferably 8 x 10 inches. At least one piece of identifying material must, on its front, back, or mount, indicate the title of the work and an exact measurement of one or more dimensions of the work.

*NOTE: Copyright Office fees are subject to change. For current fees, please check the Copyright Office website at www.copyright.gov/docs/fees.html, write the Copyright Office, or call (202) 707-3000.
====

Somthing interesting to note here is that game rules are not copyrightable... also interesting to note is All pieces of identifying material other than transparencies must be no less than 3 x 3 inches in size...

I'm not sure if that 3x3 rule applies to all game content or just the submissions to the copyright office. If it includes all game content, technically, all Magic the Gathering cards, and similar type card games are in trouble since those cards are about 2x5" x 3".

Could we just check with the U.S. Copyright Office instead?

I'm sorry, but why does a building such as the Empire State Building qualify for "copyright on its image"?

It doesn't.

Buildings built after 1990 can qualify for copyright on their design. I.e., you can't say "nifty building, I'm going to build one just like it."

Some people have apparently confused this with a general copyright on the image of a building, but they are incorrect: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."

So you can say ""nifty building, I'm going to take a bunch of photos of it and sell them." (In the U.S., at least. The French have tried to copyright the lighting configuration of the Eiffel Tower, and the Egyptians have made noise about copyrighting ancient monuments.)

I'm sorry, but why does a building such as the Empire State Building qualify for "copyright on its image"?

It doesn't.

Buildings built after 1990 can qualify for copyright on their design. I.e., you can't say "nifty building, I'm going to build one just like it."

Some people have apparently confused this with a general copyright on the image of a building, but they are incorrect: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."

So you can say ""nifty building, I'm going to take a bunch of photos of it and sell them." (In the U.S., at least. The French have tried to copyright the lighting configuration of the Eiffel Tower, and the Egyptians have made noise about copyrighting ancient monuments.)

The rights that are spelled on in law, dumbass.

Do you truly believe law defines morality?

That's right -- it's illegal to eat onions in certain cities and at certain hours. I assert that I have the right to eat onions whenever the fuck I want.

How about we talk about rights, and not laws?

Here is some more reading for you:

Ah, yes, that would be this right. Specifically:

(c) Prohibition on Circumvention of the System. No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection (a).

Is that the "right" you're defending? The right to require that no one ever circumvent your copy protection, no matter what the reason? Does it ever occur to you that there might be a legitimate reason?

What does preventing me from ripping a DVD to an iPod have to do with "promoting the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Sounds to me like it does exactly the opposite, which is why people actually creating content (instead of trolling on Slashdot) are signing up with Amazon MP3.

Looks to me like I read what you linked to, but you didn't even give what I linked to a chance. Try again.

In other words -- you are a troll, and you might actually believe that circumvention of copy protection is immoral.

Let's talk about that -- what is immoral about me ripping a DVD to an iPod? Because that is illegal.

Sorry if you're too shallow to see the difference between legality and morality.

The rights that are spelled on in law, dumbass. I don't give a fuck what an OpEd piece in the NY Times says. I can turn to the Constitution and the U.S. Code, also known as the LAW.

Here let me help you:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

That "right". Does that answer your question, dipshit?

Here is some more reading for you:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

I prefer the boat analogy, personally, from April Fool's:

RIAA Yacht Copied in Daring Act of Piracy

In a what the Coast Guard is calling a 'daring act of nautical infringement,' pirates have copied RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's personal yacht. After attacking with high speed inner tubes, they quickly made off with the data necessary to exactly duplicate the ship and vanished, but not before leaving behind an NFO with a pirate flag and a threat to 'rip' former RIAA chief Hillary Rosen's ship next. The RIAA is now demanding that the US Government issue Letters of Marquee and Reprisal so that they can prosecute these pirates under a little-known provision of copyright law governing ship designs as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.

The other story was about ways to DoS the Great Firewall of China from outside. You can, in theory, overload the content filter parts. If they're too busy to forge RST packets (or they don't forge them in time), that part of the Great Firewall won't work. You can also create false positives. So you can send packets containing banned content into China to create false positives (and tell that it's working by watching for forged RSTs). And you can reflect it by using OS bugs that sometimes reply with parts of the original packet (e.g. pings), which could allow you to create millions of false positives for them to investigate. Unlike most things, those allow outsiders to interfere, who have no worry about being arrested by the Chinese government. Of course, they would adapt things to filter them out, but hopefully that would accidentally create more openings in it by filtering out too much, creating new opportunities.

Those might even work, so I hope someone follows up on them :) Note that I wrote them all as I Believe in Irrational Property instead of I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property. Here they are:

RIAA Yacht Copied in Daring Act of Piracy

In a what the Coast Guard is calling a 'daring act of nautical infringement,' pirates have copied RIAA CEO Mitch Bainwol's personal yacht. After attacking with high speed inner tubes, they quickly made off with the data necessary to exactly duplicate the ship and vanished, but not before leaving behind an NFO with a pirate flag and a threat to 'rip' former RIAA chief Hillary Rosen's ship next. The RIAA is now demanding that the US Government issue Letters of Marquee and Reprisal so that they can prosecute these pirates under a little-known provision of copyright law governing ship designs as well as Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution.

Microsoft Seeks Partnership With IKEA

After being spurned by Yahoo, Microsoft is seeking to acquire the furniture maker IKEA. Microsoft's Ballmer was quoted as saying, 'They have many assets I can use for leverage in pursuit of future acquisitions.' The deal appeared to get off to a bit of a rough start when Ballmer's tour of one of their factories was cut short after what authorities are describing as a 'bizarre furniture-related mishap,' in which three VPs who opposed to the deal were hospitalized. Authorities are not releasing many details, but one officer made the cryptic comment that, 'I didn't think even Bob Goatse could do that with a chair.' Even so, inside reports indicate that the remaining company officers are now 'very eager' to finalize the deal.

SCO Lawsuit Was Really "Performance Art"

SCO's D

Hey, I welcome being corrected. Honestly, corrections are always welcome if I don't explain something, or if I am just plain wrong. I absolutely do not welcome you trying to be a complete jackass in any fashion, warranted or not. Legal terminology and understanding is not "something only for the big lawyers and legal secretaries" and/or people strictly of a related professional, law is something that involves the world. Everyone has their levels of expertise, and I never said I was giving law advice. If I offended you, I honestly apologize. I would have welcomed a debate in any form this whole time. I find it rather disconcerting that you attempt to spite someone for them using legal terminology really opens up plenty of personal attacks that are not worth it.

With that said, See the people that replied to your response here (chainsaw examples), and I am pretty much in agreement. I'm sorry that due to my lack of legal expertise I didn't explain that too clearly, but that is the case. Including the last part about "we'll go for the business instead of the individual consumers".

Also, tell me how you can see a form of a copyright violation (cite cases, links, etc) so I can educate myself and understand your viewpoint as to what they have in their favor as far as copyright? It's not a derivative and nothing involves modification of anything on the Blizzard side of the software as far as I know. If the opposite of what I just said is the case, I would infer that would be more of a tresspass issue. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appf.html seems to be a decent example of that. Give me a debate or personal opinion, and spare me your ego.

I cannot see how wowglider can be purported to be causing a damage or detriment to the service that blizzard provides. Their methods are rather indirect. To claim that wowglider detriments blizzard service would require some way to separate wowglider paying customers from normal ones, which in this part would be all in the same boat, no? The only way that I come up with is something involving tort (or criminal charge) is electronic tresspass (or equivalent, god forbid I don't use the most accurate word on a slashdot debate) depending on how MMOglider functions and it's interaction with data on Blizzard servers.

The pro-EULA faction's argument works like this:

Under copyright law alone, you don't have the right to make the copy(*). You don't have the right to run the software that they sell you.

Everything else you say is gibberish.

Section 109, as linked above in this thread.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109

Courts have expressly not extended doctrine of first sale to electronic files like mp3's and it would make perfect sense to extend that to ebooks. The thing to remember about first sale doctrine is that you do NOT own the "content" of a book you purchase. If I go out and buy The DaVinci Code I have 0 ownership interest in the story. What I DO have an ownership interest in is the actual physical book and the ink printed in that book. I can go out and resell the book or give it away and there is nothing the copyright owner can do about it (famous early case from 1909 about a publisher that sued Macy's for selling its books below the price the publisher wanted. Copyright had nothing to do with the eventual sale price because first sale doctrine meant the publisher lost control of the physical books after it had made the initial sale, Macy's was not bound by further contractual obligations either).
      However, looking at statute there are exceptions to first sale. One is rental of music: Ever notice how you can get a movie from Netflix but not a CD? The same applies to software (with a narrow exception for videogames so places like Gamestop can stay open). This rule goes way back to the '70's & 80's when it was pretty obvious that music "rental" places were just fronts for mass copying of music. You'd go in, rent a record, and there would be blank tapes by the checkout and a wink & a nudge. See Section 109 of the copyright act for more on this.
      In the digital age, the same reasoning that applies to the exceptions to first sale doctrine has been extended to digital downloads. Here the actual instantiation of the copy is merely a set of bits sitting on a drive. It is too difficult to be able to make an actual "sale" of the instance when transferring it over the Internet. Before you say "but I delete the file after I send it!", the courts considered that and do not buy the argument. That's why the article notes that selling your entire eBook would count: you are transferring a physical manifestation of the copyrighted material instead of trying to play games with moving bits around.

    Where CAN there be limitations on sales of actual physical items: Well, most of the limits in the article have nothing to do with copyright. Instead, they are contractual limitations which you agree to when you purchase the eBook. Copyright gets confused with many other kinds of law, but don't forget once you are in privity (aka you make a deal to buy a book from Amazon) then the contract will likely be much more relevant than generic Copyright law.

Disclaimer: IANAL but I am a 2L in copyright class right now.

In 1994 Congress passed the anti-bootlegging provisions, and 18 U.S.C. s. 2319A, that give perpetual, and retroactive, protection to unauthorized recordings of live musical performances. In 1998 Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which lengthened the copyright term from the life of the author plus 50 years to life of the author plus 70 years; the average copyright term is now longer than one human lifetime all but obliterating the usefulness of a "public domain." (As a point of reference the original copyright term in the first American copyright act was at most 28 years.) The statutory damages which accrue per instance of copyright infringement (up to $150,000) far exceeds actual damages in most cases. Thus, infringers who copy 50 songs which would have cost them $50 dollars on iTunes, or even $1000 in traditional CD format, end up owing hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Is a more balanced, public domain friendly copyright law on your agenda?

Um, no. School librarians can't copy an entire audiobook multiple times and lend it out multiple times and claim that's fair use. Sorry. Not going to fly. There's a limit to how much of the whole you can copy and still have it be fair use for educational purposes. Also, the multiple copies for classroom use generally applies to things like photocopies of an essay from a collection or an article from a magazine that is copied for the whole class to read.

I'll back my words up. If you look through the Copyright Office Circular 21: Reproduction of Copyrighted Works by Educators and Librarians, you'll see that the guidelines for use for both books and music fair use include the phrases "Copying shall not:(a) substitute for the purchase of books, publishers' reprints or periodicals;" (page 8) and "Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above." (page 9, and the exceptions wouldn't count for you.)

Also, under the GUIDELINES FOR CLASSROOM COPYING IN NOT-FOR-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
WITH RESPECT TO BOOKS AND PERIODICALS, Multiple Copies for Classroom Use it limits copying of prose: "(ii) Prose: (a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words, or (b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words." (page 8, first column)

The GUIDELINES FOR EDUCATIONAL USES OF MUSIC limits the copying of music to the following: "2. For academic purposes other than performance, single or multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section*, movement or aria, but in no case more than 10 percent of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.**" (page 9, second column)

So as you can see, the precedent is essentially that even for classroom use, you cannot create multiple whole copies of an entire work. At most, you can make multiple copies of about 10% of it. There are other sections that further limit things like how often a teacher can do it (not every year for the same work).

So buying one audiobook and copying it a bunch of times onto various iPods/mp3 players and lending it out to multiple students is a breach of copyright, even if done for their education. Sorry.

You again? You really are batting a million today, aren't you? Go read section 512(a) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and then come back and tell me that again. Here, I'll even be nice and link to it for you:

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#512

It doesn't matter how little you copy, it's still a copyright violation. (And no, this particular usage is definitely not covered by fair use.)

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authors expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

As long as you change the elements that are copyrightable (images, music, etc.), everything else is fair game. The gameplay can be the exact same.

Remember, you can't copyright the rules of a game - not even in the US of A.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

Copyright protects only the particular manner of an authors expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.

That's what I just came in here to post. here is the Copyright Office on copyrighting games. Namely, they can't really be copyrighted (except for literary or artistic elements that accompany it, such as a board with specific color patterns).

Actually I had already linked to this page which is the U.S. office of copyright's page for guidelines on copyrighting games. It specifically excludes the items I mentioned and since trademark does not apply to such items, patent is all that is left.

You're correct, excepting the fact that your statement is a straw man, since neither I nor the other poster claimed we felt anything, only what we thought.

Strangely I don't have a legal library handy. I did, however, cite public documents published by the government.

Likely India for ease of getting damages.

And what position, exactly, is that? Mattel, who has standing in this, has only talked about trademarks. Lots of jurisdictions will support their rights in that regard and they probably have a pretty slam-dunk case with Scrabble and Scrabulous being so similar.

You don't have to be an expert on intellectual property laws to have a reasonable handle on them, given that they are fairly uniform in most of the world. That applies double in a simple case like this.

"The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.

"Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles." - http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html

This link is the US Copyright Office's page describing how copyright applies to games. The relevant quote is:

Basically, copyright applies to the text and graphic elements, none of which are likely identical in this clone. What could be defended as intellectual property would be a patent on the mechanics of game play (which are almost certainly expired) and a trademark on the name "Scrabble" which does not expire and almost certainly provides an avenue for legal action since "Scrabulous" is clearly derivative and confusing to purchasers.

So in other words only the rich now can make money on anything that would be considered IP

No, not if the fee is small and reasonable - which it is. Yes, anyone of us can register a copyrighted work. Do it right here. It's $45 to register a literary work. If your living depends on it, I'm betting you can find $45 to "invest" in your idea. If you can't, maybe you should find something else to do.

And note: currently, you do NOT have to register a copyright for the copyright to be recognized. (However, I think you have to register if you go to court to defend it. Not sure...anyone?)

If it auto-magically slips into the public domain - then anyone can use it for no fees/no restrictions. Congress determines when that happens and the limit varies, depending on the copyright

So in other words only the rich now can make money on anything that would be considered IP

No, not if the fee is small and reasonable - which it is. Yes, anyone of us can register a copyrighted work. Do it right here. It's $45 to register a literary work. If your living depends on it, I'm betting you can find $45 to "invest" in your idea. If you can't, maybe you should find something else to do.

And note: currently, you do NOT have to register a copyright for the copyright to be recognized. (However, I think you have to register if you go to court to defend it. Not sure...anyone?)

If it auto-magically slips into the public domain - then anyone can use it for no fees/no restrictions. Congress determines when that happens and the limit varies, depending on the copyright

I'm pretty sure that the scale and (lack of) money involved doesn't make a difference - copyright infringement is a criminal offense.

Check your facts. The primary differences between civil and criminal infringement in the U.S. are commercial intent and scale:

Section 506 (a) Criminal Infringement. --

(1) In general. -- Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed --

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or

...

Not that I support the law -- I'm fully anti-copyright -- but your assertion was nonetheless in error.

P.S. I also found it interesting that there's also a statute of limitations on copyright infringement, three years for civil proceeding and five for criminal: Section 507.