Blizzard Sued By Game Guide Creator

Gamespot reports on a suit brought by a game guide creator against Warcraft-maker Blizzard Entertainment. The two parties will be going to court because of an attempt by Blizzard to quash a guide the plaintiff created for the World of Warcraft MMORPG. Offered electronically through eBay, the company claims that the guide creator is infringing on their IP. From the article: "Kopp's complaint argues that his book does not infringe on any of the companies' copyrights for several reasons: The book presents a disclaimer on its first page about its 'unauthorized' nature, contains no copyrighted text or storylines from the game, and makes "fair use" of selected screenshots under copyright law, the complaint said."

Comments

More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me -- why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it? Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?

I believe in true freedom and true competition. Both are what is best for the consumers in the market and the producers as well. If someone is willing to spend their own time and their own labor creating something with their own hands, I see no reason why the product shouldn't be allowed to sell. I personally tend to buy some items from large companies just because I feel I've gotten better quality products, but there are many items I won't buy from a big company because I prefer the unique feel of the item.

Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone. Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.

Making a knockoff or a product that supports another is the best part of competition -- it gives the market a choice in goods of varying prices and quality, and it also allows others to make a product better by supplementing it with add-ons, upgrades, modifications and third party support services. Can you see Google suing someone for writing a guide to using Google? Wouldn't that guide give Google free marketing and promotion for their product?

Blizzard is run by MBAs, I guess, not artists. These "educated" businessmen don't see the value of free promotion; they should be taking advantage of this guy's supplementary art by promoting his product just as he's promoting theirs. They can both profit, and the consumers will walk away with the products they want at a price they're willing to pay. That is competition, and that is freedom.

The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over. We see proof here that people can't create something based on previous work (as every work is) because the cartels with the power of the legal industry are the ones controlling the law -- the law meant to keep opportunities open, not close them off.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[HoosierPeschke]

Funny, one of the word of the day phrases on Google today is "The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race." - Don Marquis.

It ties in that Blizzard will stifle any competition because it only wants itself to make money. Maybe Blizzard wants to release its own Game Guide. I, for one, hope Blizzard loses or else this may set precedent for others to sue publishers for producing Game Guides.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

Funny, one of the word of the day phrases on Google today is "The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race." - Don Marquis.

That's funny, actually, because I was looking up that quote a few weeks ago. I tend to think of it a bit differently: "The chief obstacle to the progress of an individual is democracy."

It ties in that Blizzard will stifle any competition because it only wants itself to make money. Maybe Blizzard wants to release its own Game Guide. I, for one, hope Blizzard loses or else this may set precedent for others to sue publishers for producing Game Guides.

The precedents set can affect more than game guides. Why isn't it illegal to do a review of a product? Why isn't it illegal to complain about a product? I'm sure there are cases where both were true.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me -- why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it? Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?

He wrote a guide book. The guide book is not a replacement for the game itself, it's something different.

Now if he had taken WoW artwork and characters and made his own MMORPG, that would be copyright infringement. A guide book is fair use, even if it uses screenshots from a copyrighted game.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else.

While I understand what you mean, you might want to avoid casual use of the term 'prior art' as it is a term of art in patent law, and this is essentially a copyright discussion.

why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it?

These are really two different questions. So long as the assemblage is creative and original, it's not a problem that many of the component elements are not. Dragons and knights and rescuing princesses and so on are all staples of the fantasy genre and are unprotected, but what you do with those elements may be perfectly worthy of a copyright. And there are a lot of ways you can put those parts together. Think of them as being like legos; the individual blocks aren't interesting, but what you do with them is. As for the name, that's basically just consumer protection. If I bought a bottle of soda with the word 'Coke' all over it, I don't want it to actually contain coffee or something.

Why is it wrong for someone to use their own labor to make a product (even a direct knock off) and go and sell it?

It's not wrong, per se. But it might be unwise. Until fairly late in the 19th century, US copyright law didn't include a derivative right. So, if you wrote a book, anyone else could translate that book into another language without needing permission or having to pay you, the original author. If we have this right, then that means more of the possible profit that can be made from a work is directed to the author. This increases the incentive he has to create and publish works, and one goal of the copyright system to cause works to be created and published. Of course, we must balance this against other goals of the system, such as having the least restrictive, if any, copyright law at all, and having the shortest copyright terms, and encouraging the creation and publication of derivative works by any author.

Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone.

That's wrong in many regards. First, I would strongly encourage you to not use the term 'intellectual property.' It includes bodies of law such as trademarks and patents which have nothing to do with artists, and which have quite different reasons for existing. Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public. Helping authors is just a means to an end; it's not our goal.

Think of cable television. A town that doesn't have cable will often give a monopoly on cable tv to a particular company for a term of years, in exchange for the company shouldering the cost of building the infrastructure. The goal of the town is not to have to pay one company that can charge monopoly prices. It is to get someone to build the cable tv infrastructure so that it can eventually be opened up to competition.

Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together. Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.

That's a really bizarre statement.

The argument that invention and art would not occur without the force of copyright and IP is over.

I disagree. First, I at least have never felt that creation and invention wouldn't occur without copyrights and patents, respectively. Second, however, the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply. So we have to decide whether unrestricted competition or some degree of monopoly granting wil

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

While I understand what you mean, you might want to avoid casual use of the term 'prior art' as it is a term of art in patent law, and this is essentially a copyright discussion.

I care not for laws -- when I mean prior art I mean the work of previous individual using their time as they please, freely. When the law takes over terms, there is a problem.

If I bought a bottle of soda with the word 'Coke' all over it, I don't want it to actually contain coffee or something.

If you went to Target and bought a bottle of Soda with the word 'Coke' on it, and it had coffee in it (actually, see Coke Blak, heh), or had a knockoff cola, you'd stop shopping at Target. Leave the quality control to the middle man between you and Coke -- that's their job to make sure you're happy.

If we have this right, then that means more of the possible profit that can be made from a work is directed to the author.

So the labor of one person is worth more than the labor of another because of government force? That's unwise to me. If you can do a job cheaper, the market will prosper. I don't believe in derivative profits being forced by law -- I believe the market sets many precedents why people will buy the original over the knockoff (see "generic products" for details). I also see no reason to force me to pay for previous work done after I've bought a product. Do you pay your plumber every time you flush the toilet? If you see how he fixed your toilet, do you have to license that knowledge in order to do it yourself? It is your labor, do with it as you please.

First, I would strongly encourage you to not use the term 'intellectual property.' It includes bodies of law such as trademarks and patents which have nothing to do with artists, and which have quite different reasons for existing.

Again with the laws. I care not for them. Intellectual property means that someone has the right to control how you think -- and what you do with those thoughts. My labor is mine, my time is mine, I should be able to do with it as I please. Nothing should stop me unless I am directly harming the physical body or physical property of another person -- but there should be no law against hurting their "thoughts."

Second, however, the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply. So we have to decide whether unrestricted competition or some degree of monopoly granting will yield the best overall benefit. Looking only at competition or only at stimulating creation is too narrow. Both should be considered and weighed.

Complete BS. The blog world has taken over in just a few years, and millions of artists are writing great works and they're getting better. They don't do it because of copyright or even a profit motive, and the news corporations that previously controlled copyright are freaking out. Copyright creates cartels, patents creates cartels, regulations creates cartels and licensing creates cartels. Cartels are bad for business.

There is no reason to control the thoughts of others and how they use those thoughts.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already an official game guide out there. It was written and published by Bradygames but Blizzard endorses it and sells it on their online store. It's outdated and not very useful at all.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

ut your call for an absolute repudiation of all IP laws is just plain silly. Nobody is going to make games/books/movies/music if they can't protect them. Otherwise it is impossible to recoup the initial investment. Copyists have no initial investment, so they can offer copies of the work at the price of the copy.

Thousands of bands play music without worrying about copyright. Thousands of theatre groups put on performances without worrying about copyright. Millions of bloggers post daily without worrying about copyright.

It is ridiculous to think that all art has commercial motivations. When you create a product for commercial purposes, you have to think of the marketing and how you'll profit from the time you spent making a product -- knowing full well that knockoffs will occur.

I created a game in the BBS days that I released without copyright. I wrote some songs, too. I published 2 books that are copyright free and still earn me money. I use my writings as a gateway to my person -- which I bill out at a high rate.

Your labor is your labor, do with it as you please. If you're worried someone will copy you, then you have to build up your customer base slowly, and they'll see you can make new creative content that they'll gladly pay you for. I publish 2 print newsletters without copyright and people continue to subscribe when they could photocopy them and send them to friends. In fact, some do, and those friends appreciate my work and then pay me for a subcription.

The law is in the hands of the powerful and completely tramples on my freedom to do with my labor as I want to as long as I don't physically harm anyone or their property. Intellectual property laws are the equivalent of mind control.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[galonso]

*braces for random flames*

I have to first say that this posting was well presented. That said the theory presented and the facts in practice do not quite mesh.

When I read "Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else." I assumed that the post would be against the ebay vendor, because this statement clearly shows how that creator is in the wrong.

This is a derived work, and derived works require permission. It is not a parody, and does not come under the heading of protected speech. If you intend to create art derived from somebody else's art, and you do not secure permission, you are reckless at best, or at worst, a thief.

What? Crazy talk?

Blizz must defend their IP vigorously or risk losing their rights to it. To this end, from a prudent legal perspective, they are doing the right thing. Even with this in mind, however, it is very hard for me to condone theft of IP for personal profit (exactly what is happening) either for a pure profit motive's sake or as a larger 'value' issue as outlined above.

Freedoms do not grant you the 'right' to steal or improperly inhibit another. The previous post calls this competition, but let's be real -- it's wrongfully taking what is not yours. The argument that this does not apply to non-individuals is also, while well intentioned (and I see the point I think -- corporations should not have more rights than individuals -- but neither, I think it's clear, should they have fewer protections), is also incorrect from a legal and philosophical value point of view.

Whether the art was made by 'Fred' or 'Anne' is not a determinant of how it should be protected; whether the art was made by a group is also not a determinant -- after all, if group work was not protected, then nobody would ever work together for fear of having no control or ownership of their creations.

I appreciate the notion that we need to be free to function creatively, but that freedom can never include theft -- to say so puts us firmly in the same boat as groups who would justify oppression and human rights violations in the name of 'society' and 'security.'

I suspect, though I could be wrong, that the author of the parent is not in favor of such tactics in that context. If they are, then there can be no meaningful debate. If not, then I am highly curious to see how they reconcile theft with freedom.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Naradak]

Nobody is going to make games/books/movies/music if they can't protect them.

There were artists, musicians, and writers before copyrights existed. I don't find it hard to believe that they wouldn't still create works without the law's protection.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

I suspect, though I could be wrong, that the author of the parent is not in favor of such tactics in that context. If they are, then there can be no meaningful debate. If not, then I am highly curious to see how they reconcile theft with freedom.

As I said in this reply your thoughts can never be theft. I also don't see using your labor as you see fit as theft. Theft to me means going onto someone's physical property and taking a physical belonging. Using your thoughts and your hands in any way you want (on your own property) should always be legal.

My sample idea holds true. If a plumber fixes your toilet, do you pay him for every flush? If you learn from him and go fix toilets, do you pay for his knowledge every time?

If I open a soccer store in your town, can you open one across the street? Absolutely. Should I have a right to being the only one in town? Not a chance.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

If you went to Target and bought a bottle of Soda with the word 'Coke' on it, and it had coffee in it (actually, see Coke Blak, heh), or had a knockoff cola, you'd stop shopping at Target. Leave the quality control to the middle man between you and Coke -- that's their job to make sure you're happy.

But you wouldn't know which store is Target, either. Or visit some other place, you couldn't rely on the names at all to help you identify anything, you could go into Target and find a grocery store or a bar or a brothel. You wouldn't know which "Coke" they are selling until you try it, you could not carry over any previous experience with any product. All that just for some idea that "names should belong to noone".

If you can do a job cheaper, the market will prosper. I don't believe in derivative profits being forced by law -- I believe the market sets many precedents why people will buy the original over the knockoff (see "generic products" for details).

Problem is when you add media to the deal. With media the good sold is information, not the physical medium. But there would be no protection on the information and we have technology to duplicate the information without loss of quality. Concrete example: Take CDs. Data on a CD can take months or years and thousands or millions of dollars to produce but the actual medium only costs pennies these days. As you know, it's trivial to just take a CD and make an exact duplicate of it. A leech could sell tons of CDs for 1$ a piece by simply copying content he did not create. The original creator cannot offer any advantage to the buyer (except for the feeling of supporting the creator but few care about that) that the copiers cannot offer. So the creator would have to compete with the leeches on price directly but the leech has no development costs to cover. As a result the leech has a competitive advantage over the creator.

A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it. And while you may argue that it's better to create art for the love of it instead of for money, you cannot deny that it would lower the productivity of artists simply because they would have to spend time they would spend on creating art on earning the money to live. Oh, and of course because they can't use the same budget current for-profit art uses. While some argue that Hollywood movies are unnecessary I still think that it would mean a loss of variety and artistic freedom. It's not like anyone's preventing you from making your own art in your free time, that possibility always remains. But without copyright the freedom to use expensive elements in your art would be greatly reduced, simply because you can't afford it.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

Lights replaced gaslamps -- what happened to the lamplighters?

Tires replaced horseshoes -- what happened to the anvil makers?

The Internet is quickly making the Encyclopedia irrelevant, should we protect the encyclopedia makers?

The highway system made trains irrelevant, should we safe them with government power?

In the grand scheme of things, as technology improves, it replaces old ways of doing business. Now that you don't need a huge studio to make music, you also don't need huge budgets. What is wrong with a band making an album to give out freely -- charge for signatures or value added options -- and make their money using their real labor in live shows? What is wrong with a theater group making a movie DVD of their performance to give away freely -- to drive people to see their shows? What is wrong with a book author writing freely online (as I do) in order to charge more for their public engagements (as I do)?

Supply and demand wins out -- now that media is near infinite in supply, the price drops toward zero. Find new ways to make money, don't stick to the old ones.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[deinol]

The precedents set can affect more than game guides.

Except there is no precedent set unless the trial actually concludes. Most often something like this is dropped or settled out of court.

The real question is, can this guy afford to stay in the fight long enough to bring a case to conclusion?

The main reason a big company is willing to sue small ones frequently, is that even if the law doesn't support the big one, they can afford to outlast a small one so the little guy gives up without a fight. It isn't right, but it is the way it often goes.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[shadexiii]

"Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together."

Blizzard is a business, a corporation.

Corporations according to Wikipedia

Corporate entities are basically individuals in the legal sense, with some differences (I think, don't have a law degree, going off of memory and a brief skim of wiki.) Thus, Blizzard is, in fact, a singular artist. It just has many bodies and minds, sort of like a hive mind. Most of their workers likely signed agreements that they do not have ownership of their individual creations. Regardless, I agree with cpt kangarooski, your statement is bizarre. Its simply the law of the land we live in, like it or not. Believe it or not for that matter, it won't change the court's view if you infringe upon the law.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

But you wouldn't know which store is Target, either. Or visit some other place, you couldn't rely on the names at all to help you identify anything, you could go into Target and find a grocery store or a bar or a brothel. You wouldn't know which "Coke" they are selling until you try it, you could not carry over any previous experience with any product. All that just for some idea that "names should belong to noone".

So? You go to a store and you return because the service is good, the price is right and the product is consistent. It doesn't matter if it has a name, there are Targets I won't go to in my area because they're subpar to others in the same area.

Concrete example: Take CDs. Data on a CD can take months or years and thousands or millions of dollars to produce but the actual medium only costs pennies these days

Which is why you need to sell more than the data on the CD. Sell the support, sell the add-on hardware, sell the live performance, sell the training, sell the installation, sell a follow-up newsletter. The time you spend making that CD is your labor -- don't put in your labor until you know how you can market the product in a world of competition and "piracy."

A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it.

Untrue. I make a very good income by giving all my data away for free and billing for my personal time (on the phone, in face-to-face consultations and in public speaking engagements). Nothing restricts others from doing it but they are LAZY because of the government force of copyright. They want to work once and make money forever rather than working a little bit at a time to build a regular customer base and then continue making money by working. Bands that make a one-hit wonder might spend 5 hours in the studio on that song, but they have a right to millions due to the monopoly distribution cartels who own the copyright system.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Da3vid]

Careful, you wrote down the word "legos" without attributing their trademark.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

This is great if everyone remains honest and well intentioned, but we don't live in that kind of reality.

You seem to be forgetting the basic concept of copywriting; it's in the word itself "copy." What happens when you create something, you spend hours, weeks, months, years creating this, be it a work or art or commerce. After completing someone comes along and find a way to duplicate your work with minimal effort, say a few minutes. Now this person decides to not only copy your work, but also is dishonest and claims the work as their own. Should this person be allowed to claim your hard work as their own? You seem to be under the impression that the act of duplication is equal to the act of original creation, it isn't, by just about any measure.

The emergence of copywrite has nothing to do with decreased desire to create new works, but the emergence of easier and easier methods to copy those works and in many cases fraudulent claims that the copies are original work. To explain, lack of copywrite didn't discourage people from releasing work in the past because methods of duplication were difficult. Now methods of duplication are simplistic and thus the lack of protection on original works can mean the creator can be drowned in copies of his own work. With no protection there is nothing perverting lazy, deceitful people from stealing original work and profiting from it.

Now copywrite can be abused certainly, but with methods of duplication so simple today I really think lack of copywrite would be stifling in many areas of both art and commerce. Its one of those things that has be evolved an compromised, throwing it out removes protections from honest people looking to profit from their hard work. So rather lets find good way to improve copywrite laws to reduce abuses and retain protection of original work as just saying "throw them all out" is naïve.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Which is why you need to sell more than the data on the CD. Sell the support, sell the add-on hardware, sell the live performance, sell the training, sell the installation, sell a follow-up newsletter. The time you spend making that CD is your labor -- don't put in your labor until you know how you can market the product in a world of competition and "piracy." What if someone copying your data does this too, but because they had to invest nothing into the creation they can do it cheaper than you. In this type of model the copier will always win because he has no overhead costs in the creation.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

I care not for laws -- when I mean prior art I mean the work of previous individual using their time as they please, freely. When the law takes over terms, there is a problem.

It's merely jargon, but using it in an unusual manner can make it harder to understand you than it needs to be. Think of how many novice computer users call the monitor the computer, and the computer the hard drive, and so on. It makes it hard to provide them with tech support; they can't quite explain what their problem is, and the person helping them has a harder time telling them how to fix their problem and giving advice so that it doesn't happen again.

If you went to Target and bought a bottle of Soda with the word 'Coke' on it, and it had coffee in it (actually, see Coke Blak, heh), or had a knockoff cola, you'd stop shopping at Target.

No, I'd stop buying things labeled 'Coke' because I would no longer have any idea of what I'd be buying. And as another poster has noted, how would I know that this Target is related in any way to other stores of the same name? Basically I would have a much harder time as a customer, because I would have to test everything instead of being able to rely on all goods or services that bore a particular label being basically the same as others with that label. As I said, trademark law is basically about consumer protection. It's also about unfair competition, in that it's not very fair for one company to steal the customers of another, not by being better or cheaper, but simply by tricking customers.

So the labor of one person is worth more than the labor of another because of government force?

You're missing the point.

If I were to write a book, and there was no copyright, I could expect that of all the money that could possibly be made from the book, I might get 1% of that (the number is arbitrary). If there were a copyright, but no derivative right, I could expect maybe 10%. And if there were a copyright with a derivative right, I could expect maybe 25%.

So, let's say that the book will ultimately be worth $10,000. Without a copyright, I can expect to make $100. Given that I can spend the same amount of time working at a different job and earning more, I would not bother to write the book. The opportunity cost is too high for me. With the first level of copyright discussed, I could get $1,000. Maybe now it's worth it to me to write the book, or maybe not. And with the second level, it's worth $2,500, and it is much better than the best alternative, which is to work at some job for a wage.

If the public is interested in getting books written, then yes, without copyright some books will be. But with copyright -- at least up to a certain point -- more books can be written than otherwise would be, because the authors want to make money and have a better chance of doing so now.

The public is also interested in being frugal and in not being restricted by copyrights, and so they don't want to provide more copyright than it takes. If I would write the book for sure with the copyright that directs 25% of profits to me, then there's no need to have a more expansive copyright that directs 50% of the profits to me.

The derivative right is basically just part of this policy. It's fine to the extent that it serves the public interest. Because while we want people to be free to make derivatives without permission, we also want people to create original works. And favoring one tends to disfavor the other. It's not a zero-sum game, however, and when considered in the long run, favoring one could result in also eventually favoring the other, too.

Nothing should stop me unless I am directly harming the physical body or physical property of another person -- but there should be no law against hurting their "thoughts."

Okay, so you'd be in favor of allowing kidnapping if no one got hurt, or in causing intentional emotional distress (e.g. non-physically torturing someone into a mental breakdown), and so on.

I have

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I have a hobby in my spare time of trying to make trademarks generic. You can google for more information about this on any search engine. Or I could write about it and xerox you a xerox on my xerox.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Irish_Samurai]

If a plumber fixes your toilet, do you pay him for every flush? If you learn from him and go fix toilets, do you pay for his knowledge every time?

There is a flaw with this. The plumber has a marketable skill that he exercises in a "free" society. The environment is natural and exists in its own state. Any skills that the plumber employs in this environment are because he has them. If someone else learns this skill, they are free to employ it themselves as they see fit in the "free" environment. The idea that you would have to pay a plumber to do something associated with the skill he charges for is ridiculous. No you don't pay every time you flsh a toilet, because the plumber doesn't get paid by flushing toilets. He gets paid by facilitating the ability to flush toilets. Not the same thing.

Now to WoW. Not one skill or technique that can be employed in the game has any origin other than from the work that Blizzard did. Nothing. All actions, transactions, experiences, and visuals reside in a completely fictional place that was created and facilitated by Blizzard. Every piece of Knowledge transfer in the guide is dependant on the work of Blizzard. The information this man is selling can only be employed inside of Blizzards work.

I'll buy your argument if you can show me something in the guide that I can do independently of the WoW environment.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it.

That's not a good enough justification. And it treads dangerously close to the utterly discredited sweat of the brow theory. Copies of a work are commodities, and commodity markets should not be impaired with monopolies unless there is a very good reason. There are good reasons in the case of copyright, but merely not wanting competition at marginal cost isn't one of them.

But without copyright the freedom to use expensive elements in your art would be greatly reduced, simply because you can't afford it.

Sure. But the key question is, what's best for the public? Having works be unencumbered with efficient competition, or having encumberances and less competition but more investment put into works?

Both are valuable, and we should strive to have a balance of the two that is best for the public, rather than concentrating on one over the other. Of course, shifts in technology and society may tip the balance against copyright. But I don't think we're close to that yet.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

Which is why you need to sell more than the data on the CD. Sell the support, sell the add-on hardware, sell the live performance, sell the training, sell the installation, sell a follow-up newsletter. The time you spend making that CD is your labor -- don't put in your labor until you know how you can market the product in a world of competition and "piracy."

So if you had the idea and ability to create a product that could not give you these additional income sources (e.g. movies, music or videogames) you'd either not do it or intentionally cripple your product to require such additional services? That'd still kill off the largest part of the entertainment sector.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[vertinox]

I disagree. First, I at least have never felt that creation and invention wouldn't occur without copyrights and patents, respectively. Second, however, the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply. So we have to decide whether unrestricted competition or some degree of monopoly granting will yield the best overall benefit. Looking only at competition or only at stimulating creation is too narrow. Both should be considered and weighed.

Back in the 1800's the USPTO would sometime revoke patents it deemed too beneficial to mankind such as the Combine Harvester which only got 5 years out its total 17 (around 1835). I wish I could find the source online but everything that I try in google gets modern patent references. (I remember watching this on the History Channel on the show Modern Marvels and nothing is mentioned aobut it on Wiki and can't seem to find any other patents that got revoked, but I think the policy back then was a bit different).

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

Sure. But the key question is, what's best for the public? Having works be unencumbered with efficient competition, or having encumberances and less competition but more investment put into works?

Both are valuable, and we should strive to have a balance of the two that is best for the public, rather than concentrating on one over the other. Of course, shifts in technology and society may tip the balance against copyright. But I don't think we're close to that yet.

I don't think copyright takes away any ability to compete, it merely requires you to compete using your own work instead of other people's work. Nobody's stopping you from creating a work of art and using it to compete with the big players. Of course, if you can't contribute something meaningful to the market you will be ignored and that's the way it should be, those who cannot compete should be pushed out of the market, except competing is restricted to creating works and selling them instead of copying other people's works and selling them at a lower price.

Patents may hurt the competition that happens in a market but copyright certainly does not.

Some list the "perpetual copyright" on Mickey Mouse as a problem that Copyrighrt has brought upon us but they should ask themselves "Is it really important that works can contain Mickey Mouse?". Copyright does not withold anything you'd need to compte in a market, it always leaves you the option to create a viable substitute for use in your work.

If some copyrighted work is too expensive for you, well, ignore it. It's not food, it's not water, it's just entertainment. You can live without it.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[vertinox]

Its simply the law of the land we live in, like it or not.*

*DISCLAIMER: Laws are opinion and subject to change. Usually by a judge on the 9th circuit court. See your lawyer for details. ;)

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

It makes it hard to provide them with tech support; they can't quite explain what their problem is, and the person helping them has a harder time telling them how to fix their problem and giving advice so that it doesn't happen again.

Which just means that the uneducated consumers would have to pay more for support -- the way the market is supposed to work anyway.

No, I'd stop buying things labeled 'Coke' because I would no longer have any idea of what I'd be buying.

I highly doubt it -- retailers build their profits by buying consistent products from consistent manufacturers and are always looking for better products to sell. If they bought any of the knock-off Cokes, their customers would leave completely.

If I were to write a book, and there was no copyright, I could expect that of all the money that could possibly be made from the book, I might get 1% of that (the number is arbitrary). If there were a copyright, but no derivative right, I could expect maybe 10%. And if there were a copyright with a derivative right, I could expect maybe 25%.

You've never shopped a book to be published. I'm shopping 2 right now and will end up selling it myself because I make more money. The publisher's association has cartel control of distribution until Amazon came along, and they still have massive power made from previous moneys they made off the control. Most authors don't make 1% or even 0.5% of their book sales. When I printed my 2000 copies of my first book (self published) I sold about 40% of them and gave away 60% of them and did very well. I'm thinking of making 20,000 copies of the next one because its even better -- but I'll give the e-book version away free. Mises.org has free e-books of almost all their books that you can buy on Amazon, but people keeping buying them. Odd, isn't it?

Okay, so you'd be in favor of allowing kidnapping if no one got hurt, or in causing intentional emotional distress (e.g. non-physically torturing someone into a mental breakdown), and so on.

Kidnapping is violating someone's property -- their person. Intentional emotional distress doesn't happen without voluntary cooperation of both parties. If you come on my land and I cause you distress, you leave. If I come on your land and cause you distress, you tell me to leave. If I don't leave, I'm trespassing. If you don't leave, you're accepting my distress.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[hunterx11]

If you went to Target and bought a bottle of Soda with the word 'Coke' on it, and it had coffee in it (actually, see Coke Blak, heh), or had a knockoff cola, you'd stop shopping at Target. Leave the quality control to the middle man between you and Coke -- that's their job to make sure you're happy.

Aren't you anarcho-capitalists at least supposed to consider fraud to be a form of indirect force?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, one of the word of the day phrases on Google today is "The chief obstacle to the progress of the human race is the human race." - Don Marquis.

That's funny, actually, because I was looking up that quote a few weeks ago. I tend to think of it a bit differently: "The chief obstacle to the progress of an individual is democracy."

Funny, I thought it was "The chief obstacle to the progress of an individual is morons like you." Also, please don't misrepresent any government currently in power on the planet as a democracy.Damn mindless liberatrians.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

In the grand scheme of things, as technology improves, it replaces old ways of doing business. Now that you don't need a huge studio to make music, you also don't need huge budgets. What is wrong with a band making an album to give out freely -- charge for signatures or value added options -- and make their money using their real labor in live shows? What is wrong with a theater group making a movie DVD of their performance to give away freely -- to drive people to see their shows? What is wrong with a book author writing freely online (as I do) in order to charge more for their public engagements (as I do)?

Lets turn this idea loose into the free market and see what happens. Lets say I own a webserver and take all those free music and videos and host them for public download at no cost. But, being a clever entrepenuer I add in services to make money for myself, I set up a fast saver with a better connection and sell "premium" fast downloading at a minimal cost. Or I limit bandwidth you get for free access and offer more if you pay. Also if I can sell advertising space on my web service. Also since the music is free a make my own compliation CDs, print and sell those. Heck I can even ceate my own merchandising (t-shirts, hats, etc) and sell those alongside my "free" music. My only overhead costs are just waiting for the artists to realease new music so I can copy it into my service, then I can advertise and distribute it. This is an excellent buisness model, low overhead and high profit potential. When you remove copyright protection it means ANYONE can sell your work even if you choose not you. And as in my example they don't actually have to sell your specific creation to profit from it, it can be tangential to their real product. The artists get stuck with paying for the instruments the recording equiment and have to spend all the time create the music, so there is no way for them to compete with me, I'll be able to profit much more efficiently from their work than they will. So in effect you completely recreate those big bad record companies you don't like only now the have ABSOLUTLY no obligations to the original artists.

It can even get more fun, lets say I decide to market and sell a book you wrote, but I don't like the ending, I'll just re-write it and leave your name on it. Its free so I can do whatever I want to it and sell it and I have no obligation to tell anyone I changed it. I can throw it into compilations of writing and sell it, heck I'll even pitch it to you "Sure you can spend hours looking online for these stories and downloading them, but for the mere cost of $29.95 I give them to you in a collection" nice of me isn't it. And since I sell in bulk I can afford to distribute and advertise more than you so now my re-written copy of your book is more common than your orignal work. Giving up your protections to the free market is great isn't it? I'll just package your work with Mien Kampf, I mean its all just writing so you won't mind, it is free after all. We can go another way, without protections I can use your work as a tool for my own marketing "with every purchase of my book you get this guys book, absolutely free."

Its basic economics, the act of creating a new product is always going to cost more than copying an exisiting product. If you allow anyone to copy exisiting products at will you create a force in the market that makes creating new products LESS profitable than copying them.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

I hadn't heard of that before, but then patents aren't my field.

In any event, I think that it's better to consider the balance with regard to broad policy and classes of works, rather than trying to look at individual works.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Most authors don't make 1% or even 0.5% of their book sales.

Like I said, the numbers were arbitrary.

Kidnapping is violating someone's property -- their person.

People aren't property.

Intentional emotional distress doesn't happen without voluntary cooperation of both parties.

Thoroughly untrue. If I suddenly and without warning scare you half to death, and you're left with mental trauma, e.g. constant nightmares, new phobias, anxiety, etc., then I've harmed you, just not physically. Your nonsense about trespassing isn't relevant. It can happen anywhere, and with sufficient rapidity that you can't really protect yourself.

Frankly, you're advocating crackpot positions, and I'm now less interested in discussing them with you as I am in refuting them so that others aren't taken in.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dougmc]

I care not for laws -- when I mean prior art I mean the work of previous individual using their time as they please, freely.

Care for them or not, they (closely related to them) will still come after you when you violate them.

When the law takes over terms, there is a problem.

Lots of problems then. A large part of the actual text of a given law is often spent defining terms.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

I don't think copyright takes away any ability to compete, it merely requires you to compete using your own work instead of other people's work.

And that's anticompetitive. When Twain's books were copyrighted, only he could sell them, and he could charge a premium. When they hit the public domain, anyone could sell them, and the competition forced the various publishers to become more efficient and lower their prices.

It's no different from saying that a monopoly on wheat held by one farmer doesn't take away my ability to compete with him, so long as I sell rye instead. You're ignoring that I can't compete with him in the wheat market, and that this lack of competition may harm the public and harms me by restricting my freedom.

Sometimes monopolies are okay, but they need to be seriously justified.

Some list the "perpetual copyright" on Mickey Mouse as a problem that Copyrighrt has brought upon us but they should ask themselves "Is it really important that works can contain Mickey Mouse?"

Yes. If I have a Mickey Mouse story I want to tell, then I'm going to need the character. Not being able to use it harms me, since I'm not free to create the works I want. It harms the public, since they can't get those works, which could very well be better than those that Disney makes. It harms Disney to a degree, since the lack of competition lets it sit on its laurels.

We might want to give them a monopoly so that they'll create Mickey Mouse to begin with, but after that, we want everyone free to use it. This results in the greatest competition, producing the best Mickey Mouse works we can. It forces Disney to create something new if it wants a monopoly again. And it results in the least intrusion on people's freedom.

Disney certainly has done well by making works that contain fairy tale characters and stories. Why shouldn't the rest of us get to use Mickey Mouse in just the same way?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

To explain, lack of copywrite didn't discourage people from releasing work in the past because methods of duplication were difficult.

Meh.

Authors and pirates have always had parity in technology, often with a bit of an edge to the authors due to economies of scale, first mover advantages, etc. There's no reason that the MPAA can't put their movies on Bit Torrent themselves, rather than letting that medium remain the playground of pirates that it largely is. But, they don't want to, and for this they've no one to blame but themselves.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Complete non-sequitur, thats a method of DISROBUTION, not creation or duplication. Movies not being distributed on bittorrent has absolutly nothing to do with the ease people are able to copy them.

To be more specific 50 years ago copying a movie would mean getting a hold of the film negative and copying it, neither of those things is easy and the firt part likely involves physical theft. Now it requires a computer, a purchased DVD and an hour of your time. So the idea that pirates have the always had the same level of technology and access to copy material is absurd.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Kadin2048]

Its basic economics, the act of creating a new product is always going to cost more than copying an exisiting product. If you allow anyone to copy exisiting products at will you create a force in the market that makes creating new products LESS profitable than copying them.

I think this assumes that there will always be a demand for the copied product. Which I really doubt is true -- if some band releases a song, and it's immediately picked up and copied everywhere, there will be a high initial demand for it, and then that demand will taper off, and over time it will diminish towards zero. (Well, or towards some constant, perhaps.) But over time people are going to become dissatisfied with the content that's out there.

There will always be a demand for artists to create new content because people will always want something new. Your "basic economics" is fundamentally flawed if it does not take that into account. Although I doubt it would allow musicians to keep up the mega-tours and ultra-rich lifestyles that (a very few of them) maintain now, I think that groups which had a sufficient fan interest would probably be kept in business by voluntary contributions given by people who simply want to encourage them to continue producing music. Obviously, being a professional musician might suddenly become less of a lucrative profession than it is now, but it would end up being in line with the market's demand for new content.

Effectively, such a model would separate the "demand for creation of new content" from the "demand for creation of copies of existing content." Once something is created, it can be copied ad infinium without any benefit to the creator, but the act of creation has already been accomplished, and under such a system would already have been paid for by benefactors who wanted the work created.

I think you are correct in saying that far fewer people actually care about the creation of new works than care about possessing copies of already-created ones, but to say that there is no demand for newly-created works is incorrect. Over time, people will desire new things to listen to, look at, and watch, and they will pay people to make them, even if they are not able to then take that work and profit by monopolizing the distribution of it.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Complete non-sequitur, thats a method of DISROBUTION, not creation or duplication. Movies not being distributed on bittorrent has absolutly nothing to do with the ease people are able to copy them.

BT is actually both distribution and reproduction. If the downloader wasn't making a new copy, what would happen to the copy on the machines serving it?

In any case, it's true for reproduction and distribution. Pirates have no special advantages, and since the technologies they use are just as available to everyone else, they never will. In fact, given economies of scale, official publishers generally have the advantage over pirates. A CD factory can make more CDs, faster, at a lower unit cost, than some schmoe with a CD burner can.

And theft is not needed either. Pirates usually rely on a first generation copy of published material. Where that material is digital -- CDs, computer software, printed text -- there's no quality loss. Where it is analog -- fine art, photos, movies, vinyl records -- there may be some, but again, this gives the advantage to publishers, not pirates.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Some_Llama]

"but because they had to invest nothing into the creation they can do it cheaper than you."

If his main source of revenue is being able to train others on his product, tailor the product for specific customers, get support for the product, and/or provide a community for his users, then who could really be able to provide this better than the creator of the product himself or his "official" affiliates?

When I want to update my windows installation I don't go to www.joes.update.com I go to windowsupdate.microsoft.com

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Again, you are missing the point. Pirates don't have an advantage, but in the past they have been at a severe disadvantage. Modern technology has given them much faster and more reliable ways to copy material. My whole point is that pirates have advanced greatly in their ability to copy material, not that they have any kind of technological advantage that is unavailable to legitimate publishers.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

This is a derived work, and derived works require permission. It is not a parody, and does not come under the heading of protected speech. If you intend to create art derived from somebody else's art, and you do not secure permission, you are reckless at best, or at worst, a thief.

Not really.

Remember, copyrights only apply to creative portions of works. Works which lack creativity (e.g. the white pages) or uncreative portions of works (e.g. a historical novel which is chiefly fiction, but which contains some historical facts as well) are not protected.

One sort of thing that is not copyrightable is a system or method of operation, per 17 USC 102(b). Facts are also not copyrightable, since they lack originality, and thus creativity.

So if someone is describing the game mechanics of WoW, then he is at most only copying uncopyrightable material: the system by which the game functions, and facts about the game. He is not copying creative parts of the game, such as the artwork, storyline, sounds, or software. Since there is no copyright as to the parts of the work he is using, he is not infringing on the derivative right.

Blizz must defend their IP vigorously or risk losing their rights to it.

That's not as true as you may think.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

No, a guide book is not a fair use. It's a use of public domain materials. A use is a fair use if the underlying material is copyrightable; the game rules that underlie WoW are not.

His use of the WoW trademark appears to be nominative. And use of screenshots would be fair use.

Really, the copyright and trademark parts of the case seem open and shut in the guide author's favor. However, there is an interesting breach of contract claim that Blizzard could assert. I'm mostly interested to see how that works out. If it's like the bnetd case, it could be bad for the guide author.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Okay, so you're saying not that pirates have an advantage, but that the gap between publishers and pirates has narrowed. Well, that's possible, at least in some areas, though I think you're overstating just how broad it has been at times especially for certain classes of works. In any event though, I don't think that there would be a big difference between if we didn't have copyright now, and if we didn't have it 50 or 100 years ago.

Anyway, it doesn't interest me too much. Unless things really change dramatically, my goal of best serving the public can probably be achieved with less copyright than now, but not no copyright at all. (at least across the board -- some things should be uncopyrightable)

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

If I am able to copy material at the point of release then the "demand for creation of new content" and the "demand for creation of copies of existing content" are fullfuiled simultaniously, the source does not matter. If my copy service has the music one hour after the band releases it they gain almost no market advantage and I can promote the newly released music. There is no barrier to me copying something as soon as it is released, and if I'm sneaky I can potentially get my hands on it before it is released.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

You really have no clue and should shut up.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Do you pay for those updates? Does Joe make a competing operating system?

No and no.

What about products that don't require updates, or can be maintained by third parties? Because I can get my Ford fixed at the local mechanich, does that mean Chevy can copy design because Ford won't be selling the maintenance?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Atanamis]

I make a very good income by giving all my data away for free and billing for my personal time (on the phone, in face-to-face consultations and in public speaking engagements). Nothing restricts others from doing it but they are LAZY because of the government force of copyright.

I can understand your position with regard to copyright. I do not entirely agree, but I understand your position. Where you are confusing me here is in your lack of support for trademarks. Are you honestly indicating that you would not mind someone hiring a lookalike to you, then going around billing for the time of that look alike while claiming that person was really you? A trademark law is designed simply to prevent one person or group of persons from dishonestly claiming to be another person or group of people.

Trademark law should not even matter here, because this writer did not ever represent himself as being Blizzard, or owning WOW. It simply should not apply. The purpose of trademark law (to prevent misrepresentation) really does not apply here, so neither should the protections granted by trademark law.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, I'm a copyright and trademark attorney. And beyond merely having a J.D., which is the ordinary level of education held by lawyers, I got an LL.M. (a Master's) in IP. And copyright and trademark are what I practice in. I got into law because I became so interested in these fields (I used to be an artist), and my interest remains very high.

A lot of people use /. and I have seen other lawyers here from time to time. It's tough to know for sure how many, given that there are probably more lurkers than posters, but I would guess that I'm one of the most knowledgable people here with regard to this subject.

But hey, if talking trash about me makes you feel like a big man, knock yourself out.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

What the poster meant was that since you are an informed individual rather that an ill-informed no-nothing know-it-all, you have no business posting on /. unless you parrot the group mime that EVERYTHING should be free as in beer.

I said good day!

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Moofie]

By "combine harvester", I believe you mean "cotton gin". But OK.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[yar]

I needed a kleenex when I read that.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[zenhkim]

Well, gee ...I guess this means we can kiss goodbye all those third-party game strategy books, mission guides, and walkthroughs *in existence* -- since all of them are apparently now fodder for copyright lawsuits.

Seriously, are the guys at Blizzard now completely fucked in the head? Have they become *that* much of an asshole colony?? What in hell are they thinking?!? If someone writes anything -- a news article, a critical review, or a how-to guide -- about a program, *they're in violation of copyright law* ????

Some of the best game guides I've ever read were written by third parties; many excellent game walkthroughs are available for free off of websites. Some game FAQs were essentially written en masse by fans who pooled their collective playing experience for the benefit of everyone. AND BLIZZARD WANTS TO OUTLAW THE WHOLE LOT OF THEM?!?

Blizzard, I used to think you were OK. Now I say KMA, GTH, and FOAD.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[xero314]

With out getting it to semantic arguments or political bias I have to say that there are some significant flaws in the parent comment.

I believe in true freedom and true competition.

This is probably far from the truth. True freedom and true competition would lead to a return of slavery. I know you ask how is slavery freedom, but you have to remember the freedom to have slaves is in itself a freedom. This is the core problem with most of these type of arguments. To protect one freedom you often have to abolish another (the opposite of freedom from oppression is the freedom to oppress).

If someone is willing to spend their own time and their own labor creating something with their own hands, I see no reason why the product shouldn't be allowed to sell. I personally tend to buy some items from large companies just because I feel I've gotten better quality products, but there are many items I won't buy from a big company because I prefer the unique feel of the item. This is exactly why copyright and Intelectual property laws exist. If it were not for IP and copyright law, ALL products would be manufactured by large companies. They would be legally able to copy every bit of the "feel" of other products, there by removing the benifit of being "unique" and, do too resource differences be able to produce a higher quality or cheaper product.

Intellectual property laws were originally created to protect artists and artists alone.

As has been pointed out this is false, unless you use a very broad defenition of artist which includes anyone who has a new and unique Idea. Copyright law even specifically accounts for cases where a work is created "for higher" by another party. This shows very clearly that copy right was not intended to protect the original artist but who ever, under the law, could legally lay claim to the rights of the work. Having done many "works for higher" in my life I am very familiar with the topic.

Each artist at Blizzard has their own art they've created, and they should worry individually about making the best produt they can at the lowest price. That is competition.

I have already clearly explained that the "artist" that work for blizzard, though they created the "art" have no legal right to it because they have an agreement with Blizzard transfering the copyright. To say that "competition" is as clear as saying making the best product at the lowest price is all that it is happens to be very naive. It is well know that Microsoft, regardless of your opinion, does not make the best produt they can at the lowest price, yet they are a fine example of competition. Italian car makers are another great example. Often times you can be competitive by doing, one or the other, or neither. Linux is a fine example of a project that actually does both, it's a good product and the price is unbeatable, but to say that it is competetive is a bit of a stretch, specially if you measure success through profit.

The rest of the comment is mostly senseless, and probably just throw together in the hopes of being first post. Basically it makes the assumption that the unauthorized WoW guide does not decrease the value of Blizzards intelectual property, and even goes as far as to say it increases it. This is false speculation which does not take into account Blizzards licensing fees on authorized guides. There is also the false assumption that copyright law was intended to open opportunities to everyone, when in reality was intended to protect the rights of the owners from reduction in profit do to unauthorized replication and derivation.

I only hope that Blizzard and other producers of quallity products learn a good lesson and make their licensing far more stringent, possibly even adding no disclosure clauses. Could you imagine that. And as much as the Slash dot crowd thinks this would hurt profititablity of a product, if you look around most people don't care about being what it says in a licensing agreement and will go ahead an pay for the products even with those restrictions.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Some_Llama]

"Do you pay for those updates?"
I paid for the OS which included updates for a period of time, why would I go to Joe instead? He didn't make the OS I purchased...

Does Joe make a competing operating system?"
If he does then i'll evaluate if it is a better OS and then make my purchasing decision.

"What about products that don't require updates, or can be maintained by third parties?"

What about them... if you'll look at the parent post you'll see this is about not making money ONLY from the media (Which IP laws make very profitable) but from the value of additional services that can be purchased that enhance the main creation.

Did you read the parent?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Jim_Callahan]

So taking screenshots, AKA Graphics directly from the artistic piece produced by blizzard, copying them, and then selling them is not exceeding fair use? Sweet! I'm going to go cut up a David Lynch movie, put it together in a different order (no one would notice) and sell copies of my "fair use" on EBay!

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[yar]

And that is a fascinating question. The bnetd case was a very scary legitimization of EULAs in general. I'm glad I don't live in the 8th circuit. ^^;

As far as the copyright case, I do agree that it should be a pretty open and shut case. I do expect to see arguments on the effects of potential or existing markets by Blizzard's attorneys with references to Texaco. I'll be watching this carefully, because if it does come up in Blizzard's favor there are certainly pretty significant implications for print or online guides, tutorials, etc., whether through the increased legitimization of EULAs or a stretched interpretation of copyright law.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Liam Slider]

That'd still kill off the largest part of the entertainment sector.

Can you honestly look at the entertainment industry today and say that this is necessarily a bad thing?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[dada21]

And we (at least I) appreciate your input. I have friends in the IP law business and they're regular lurkers. Most of the offline debates I've had with them from time to time affect my opinions here as well. I'm glad to see a healthy debate over it -- as I've often discovered, it is often times those who are within a given business that give me the best debate.

Most people on slashdot make no money from copyright, but seem to want to keep it "as-is" or mostly "as-is" due to some dream of becoming a super-rock-star or (insert mega income art type here). Unfortunately, few of them have any knowledge of the ins-and-outs of the business.

In my mind, I think copyright (and IP) has put way too much power in the hands of those who know how to manipulate the system -- usually the law. When the law is so powerful that only the powerful can use it, there is a problem. I truly believe we have numerous distribution cartels/content cartels that are on the verge of losing control of their media. In the long run, I believe it is a losing battle for the cartels, but one which I am happy to keep pushing for.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I love the freedom to use my labor to gain more free time for myself later ("money") but I don't like to encumbered by, or taken advantage of, laws that prevent others from trying their hand at creating something.

All my works -- ALL of them -- are freely copyable. I openly allow anyone to take anything I've written, slap their name on it, and market it themselves. The same is true of anything I produce beyond the written word, and I've seen a few of my creations copied by others. In the long run, though, it has lead to more people finding me even though I had no direct reference in the copied text.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, it depends.

Using those screenshots in the guide may or may not be fair use. There are four factors traditionally considered when trying to figure out if something is a fair use:

1. The purpose and character of the use. Here it is transformative, since it is in a guide, but it is also commercial, rather than educational. There are commercial fair uses, but this is a bit of a wash.

2. The nature of the work being used. Here it is a creative work, which is in Blizzard's favor.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used as compared to the work as a whole. This is solidly in Kopp's favor. The screenshots show only teeny tiny portions of WoW, and likely are not really important parts.

4. The effect of the use on the market for the work. This is also in Kopp's favor. His guide is no substitute for WoW; in fact it can't be, since it is only useful in conjunction with WoW.

On the whole, I think that he does have a good fair use defense.

You OTOH, may be less fortunate.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

I'm an anarcho-capitalist, I love the freedom to use my labor to gain more free time for myself later ("money") but I don't like to encumbered by, or taken advantage of, laws that prevent others from trying their hand at creating something.

I agree that ideally there would not be encumberances. However, I feel -- and this is the general theory behin copyright -- that tolerating an temporary encumberance for a greater eventual gain is worthwhile.

Basically copyright is a bribe that we give to artists, so that they will do things we want them to do. The artists we give the bribe to would not have done these things otherwise. Artists that would, we don't bribe; it's tricky to identify who is who, however. The bribe is a cost the public has to pay in that we are encumbered, etc. But if the benefit derived from the artists is greater, it was worth it in the end.

I simply want to find the optimal point at which we get the greatest benefit for the least cost.

As I see it, your policy is to simply have the least cost, even though this will be a less than maximum benefit. I understand that, but I think that you're ignoring the potential benefits of copyright. At least from copyright when it's implemented properly. It sure isn't implemented properly right now!

All my works -- ALL of them -- are freely copyable. I openly allow anyone to take anything I've written, slap their name on it, and market it themselves. The same is true of anything I produce beyond the written word, and I've seen a few of my creations copied by others.

I generally do the same thing, but because I do know when copyright is and isn't a motive for me. When it is not, why should I have it? It doesn't make sense for the public, and it just seems spiteful, if people who don't need copyrights try to get them anyhow. But if I was incentivized by copyright for some particular thing, I wouldn't have a problem going after it.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[iminplaya]

...the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply.

Hmmm...don't know how much lower you can get.

Second, copyright laws were not created to protect artists alone; they also protected publishers, but their actual goal was to serve the public interest by enticing authors and publishers to behave in certain ways beneficial to the public.

I'm sure you're aware the some early French copyright law left the artist out of the picture completely. It almost caused a riot. I, for one, have always believed that copyright law was to benefit the publishers/distributors above all else. And for some it provides a way to silence the critics. I believe that this also was part of the original intent of these laws.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, let's abolish government except for private contracts between people and corporations. Surely the lack of government will prevent all evil!

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

So the creator would have to compete with the leeches on price directly but the leech has no development costs to cover. As a result the leech has a competitive advantage over the creator.

Why did the creator do all that work for free, hoping to sell copies later, when it's obvious that any "leech" can sell copies at an equal or lower price? That doesn't sound like a sensible business plan at all.

A market for data simply cannot exist without some restriction on just going out and copying it.

OK... so what? Why would you need a market for data? Data isn't scarce.

Data is sequences of numbers; no one expects there to be a market for the speed of light, or the first few digits of pi, or the wingspan of a 747. Those are just numbers that anyone can look up and use whenever they want - they aren't "owned" by the scientists who measured the speed of light or the engineers who designed the 747.

Telling your friend "hey, if you multiply 3.14159265 by the squared radius of a circle, you'll get the circle's area" is fundamentally no different from telling him "hey, if you save [these 350 million bytes] into an AVI file and play it, you'll see this week's Sopranos". You aren't using up pi or The Sopranos by doing so, and I would argue you don't owe a thing to the guy who first calculated pi or HBO, respectively - the data they produced is a fact now, and you can't own a fact even if your own hard work went into discovering it. That work was done in the past, and if they didn't arrange to get paid for it at the time, that's their own problem.

What's scarce is the talent, time, and effort an artist puts forth to produce data. And we can have a market for that without any laws against copying - just like we have a market for the talent, time, and effort put forth by hairdressers, mechanics, and actors. If a barber wants to get paid twice, he has to give two haircuts and charge for each one; some artists seem to think they deserve special treatment, that they should get paid again and again by each person who sees what they've made, even though they only created it once.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Fordiman]

Meh. You know, Blizzard would be an OK game developer if it weren't for their legal department. Unfortunately, they make such good games that people won't boycott them for being unholy pricks.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[mothas]

"Until fairly late in the 19th century, US copyright law didn't include a derivative right. So, if you wrote a book, anyone else could translate that book into another language without needing permission or having to pay you, the original author. If we have this right, then that means more of the possible profit that can be made from a work is directed to the author."

Just a nit-pick here, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say that we lost rather than gained derivative rights in the 19th century? Everyone had that right then, now only the rights holder has it. Pretty clearly a right lost, not gained, for the vast majority anyway.

As I understand it, this is kind of the point of free software - those folks believe that everyone *should* have derivative rights, and that it was a bad move in to deprive the public of that right.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

People aren't property.

It's unusual, but not unreasonable to say you own yourself.

Certainly you have as much of a right to decide what someone does with your body as you do to decide what they do with your car, right? They can't drag you out of your house and keep you in their garage, just like they can't drag your car out of your driveway. They can't punch you in the face, just like they can't break your car's windshield.

You, on the other hand, have the right--the exclusive right--to move your body wherever you want (as long as the owner of that place allows it), to alter your body, to authorize or refuse medical treatment, etc. That exclusive control is what ownership is all about.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Lets say I own a webserver and take all those free music and videos and host them for public download at no cost. But, being a clever entrepenuer I add in services to make money for myself, I set up a fast saver with a better connection and sell "premium" fast downloading at a minimal cost.

That sounds fine to me. You're providing the service of letting people download bits from your server, and if you can convince people to pay you for access, then go for it!

When you remove copyright protection it means ANYONE can sell your work even if you choose not you.

Obviously.

The artists get stuck with paying for the instruments the recording equiment and have to spend all the time create the music, so there is no way for them to compete with me, I'll be able to profit much more efficiently from their work than they will.

You seem to be assuming that the artist wrote and recorded his songs for free, expecting that he'd only get paid if people bought copies from him (for much more than the actual cost of such copies). Why would he do that? Why would he assume he could charge a premium for copies of the songs when it's obvious that anyone can make a copy of a CD or MP3 file for next to nothing?

If he were smart, he would've found a customer base to pay him for the act of writing and recording, i.e. his labor, beforehand. Then it wouldn't matter who sold copies, because the musician wouldn't need to make a huge profit on them - he's already been paid.

Or perhaps he would've decided that the songs are free advertising for his live shows, and calculated that he could earn enough by selling concert tickets to compensate him for all the time he put into writing and recording the songs in the first place. Of course, it's a little riskier that way.

It can even get more fun, lets say I decide to market and sell a book you wrote, but I don't like the ending, I'll just re-write it and leave your name on it. Its free so I can do whatever I want to it and sell it and I have no obligation to tell anyone I changed it.

Not necessarily... that's fraud, not just copyright infringement. Just because you'd be allowed to sell (modified) copies of the book doesn't mean you'd also be allowed to lie to your customers about its authorship.

If you allow anyone to copy exisiting products at will you create a force in the market that makes creating new products LESS profitable than copying them.

Indeed. The moral is: it's time for artists to get out of the copying business and charge for their actual work, just like everyone else.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, technically what happens is that the copyright holder gains an exclusive right. He doesn't get any more of a right to create the derivatives than he had before. After all, copyright doesn't grant rights to do things; it grants rights to stop others. This is why someone who makes child porn has a copyright on it but can still get in trouble for it. Nor does anyone really lose a right. He just can, within the confines of the copyright, prevent others from exercising their rights. The exclusivity is limited, and beyond that (e.g. fair use derivatives) people can still exercise their right. When the copyright runs out, no one regains rights, but instead no one can stop them from exercising the rights they've had all along.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

I paid for the OS which included updates for a period of time, why would I go to Joe instead? He didn't make the OS I purchased...

If MS didn't charge for the updates it would obviously not be a new source of income. If Joe set up a mirror offering the updates for free MS couldn't rely on that income anymore.

What about them... if you'll look at the parent post you'll see this is about not making money ONLY from the media (Which IP laws make very profitable) but from the value of additional services that can be purchased that enhance the main creation.

Yes and Daggon wants to know how you'd generate that extra income if the data on the medium does not need any additional services (e.g. a music CD).

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

Yes because there are people who like the stuff that comes out of there. Losing the sector as it is today would mean losing a lot of variety out there. While you may get enough voluntary workers to make a few books and songs, maybe even the occassional movie, there'd be almost no videogames available.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

That's funny, I thought it was more like "The chief obstacle to the progress of this thread is someone starting a post with something other than 'That's funny...'".

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

It's no different from saying that a monopoly on wheat held by one farmer doesn't take away my ability to compete with him, so long as I sell rye instead. You're ignoring that I can't compete with him in the wheat market, and that this lack of competition may harm the public and harms me by restricting my freedom.

Except we're talking about luxuries, not necessities and it is much harder to create a new kind of crop than it is to create a new work of art*. If Twain charged too much he wouldn't sell much.

Yes. If I have a Mickey Mouse story I want to tell, then I'm going to need the character. Not being able to use it harms me, since I'm not free to create the works I want. It harms the public, since they can't get those works, which could very well be better than those that Disney makes. It harms Disney to a degree, since the lack of competition lets it sit on its laurels.

You are free to create a character that is sufficiently similar to Mickey Mouse for the purpose of your story. If you need a character with the amount of backstory that Mickey Mouse has then you have to create that backstory yourself instead of resting on someone else's laurels. This forces you to compete by using your ability to contribute new ideas to the market instead of your ability to copy others. Or go to Japan (most of those games simply disregard copyright and use other people's characters).

Now I'm hardly a poster child of honouring copyright but I think that if you wish to compete in the market you should do it with your own ideas so the market can judge you on your own merits.

*= apply term loosely

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

Why did the creator do all that work for free, hoping to sell copies later, when it's obvious that any "leech" can sell copies at an equal or lower price? That doesn't sound like a sensible business plan at all.

Yes but who are you going to charge for the process of creating that work? A very rich person who wants something done maybe but publishers would be better off to go the leech route instead of hiring someone to create a work.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Pofy]

One factor to consider is the ammount of a work you would use. You seem to do it with the whole movie which for sure would not be OK, especially since that is all you seem to do. On the other hand, had you taken just a few frames and incorporated them into your own work, pehraps to illustrate a point your make or as an example of something, it would be much more different and OK.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Yes but who are you going to charge for the process of creating that work?

If you can finance a political campaign by collecting small amounts of money from thousands of individuals over the internet, you can finance an album that way too - music is a bit more popular than voting.

A very rich person who wants something done maybe but publishers would be better off to go the leech route instead of hiring someone to create a work.

Not really. What happens when everyone has already read all the old books and heard all the old albums? Shakespeare's works are free for anyone to publish, but Shakespeare doesn't outsell Michael Crichton or Tom Clancy. Consumer demand for new works guarantees that there'll always be money for people who can write them.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[geggo98]

While I understand what you mean, you might want to avoid casual use of the term 'prior art' as it is a term of art in patent law, and this is essentially a copyright discussion.

Now it starts. Patent law influences everyday language. Arrgh!

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Moderatbastard]

why is it OK to protect the overall look of a game or the name when pieces of the game are taken directly from thousands of games before it?

Perhaps because the whole is more than the sum of the parts? I think that if you write an original song you should be able to copyright it - but not the individual notes & chords in it.

Making a knockoff or a product that supports another is the best part of competition -- it gives the market a choice in goods of varying prices and quality

If the original product requires considerable investment of time, money or any other resources to develop then anyone making a knockoff is nothing but a parasite. They're riding on someone else by getting free R&D. You claim to be an entrepreneur but you don't seem to understand what investment is, let alone return thereon.

However, this is not a knockoff. It's a complementary product. What next - a bakery suing someone for making butter? Blizzard are stupid asses, but disagreeing with them doesn't mean that you aren't one too.

How the heck your smoke, mirrors and handwaving got modded insightful is a mystery.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Thomas Miconi]

Here's another person creating his own art based on the prior art of someone else. The copyright and IP laws make no sense to me

The guy was selling his guide through ebay. Without copyrights or IP laws, people would be able to just p2p it and he wouldn't get any money. Given that, what makes you think that he would have put the same amount of effort into making this guide as good as it (presumably) is ? In fact, what makes you think that he could have, without the expectation of some payback ?

The open source model is good for some things, but at some point it's useful to let people obtain some reward/compensation (based on the perceived usefulness of their work) for the time and resources they invest into making something.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Bastard of Subhumani]

when I mean prior art I mean the work of previous individual using their time as they please, freely. When the law takes over terms, there is a problem.

Sigh. And when I say "aardvark", I mean a bird that waddles and quacks. The fact that everyone else calls that a duck is just proof that big government is a bad thing.

'Fess up, you tried to look smart by using a technical phrase without knowing what it means and it's backfired. cpt kangarooski (3773) is right and you're wrong. Period.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Antifuse]

What about if he's screenshotting the maps and such, which I'm pretty sure other guidemakers have paid Blizzard a pretty penny for the right to use those in their own guides? Those would constitute a pretty large portion of the game. I totally want to find this guide now though! :)

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Bloke down the pub]

It's no different from saying that a monopoly on wheat held by one farmer doesn't take away my ability to compete with him, so long as I sell rye instead.

Well actually it's totally different. Cereals are tangible, physical products and there is a substantial cost to producing another unit of them. This is plainly not the case with data which can be duplicated at next to no cost, but has high fixed costs of initial creation.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[adamgeek]

i don't have any kleenex, but i'd be happy to rollerblade to the store and get you an aspirin.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Bloke down the pub]

Pirates don't have an advantage

Explain how avoiding the up-front costs isn't an advantage compared to someone who does pay thaem.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Bloke down the pub]

There is no such word as "legos". The system as a whole is "lego". The pieces are "lego bricks".

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Bastard of Subhumani]

I created a game in the BBS days that I released without copyright. I wrote some songs, too. I published 2 books that are copyright free and still earn me money. I use my writings as a gateway to my person -- which I bill out at a high rate.

For the sake of argument, take the hypothetical situation that I believe all that. (Disclaimer: I don't believe a word of it)

Very nice. Good for you. Now what makes you think that's an appropriate business model for all situations? And what gives you the right to force others to work that way?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[jgerman]

Thoroughly untrue. If I suddenly and without warning scare you half to death, and you're left with mental trauma, e.g. constant nightmares, new phobias, anxiety, etc., then I've harmed you, just not physically. Your nonsense about trespassing isn't relevant. It can happen anywhere, and with sufficient rapidity that you can't really protect yourself.

Frankly, you're advocating crackpot positions, and I'm now less interested in discussing them with you as I am in refuting them so that others aren't taken in.


And frankly, your analogies are worthless. Mental trauma IS physical harm, kidnapping someone by definition is harm. You completely ruin your point by not being able to form simple valid arguments. You're a lawyer huh? Maybe you should have went out and got an education instead of going to law school.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[jgerman]

I see what the problem is here, you've confused some bits of paper with actual knowledge, they are two separate things.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Pzychotix]

Concurrent services has nothing to do with this topic (the manual I mean). The product being sold is really just a sort of face-value product, what you see is what you get, no updates no nada. I mean, sure, there are reasons why we buy real copies instead of fake copies (i.e. we buy real copies of games for cd-keys, so we can play online). But this topic is dwelving into that area, whereas the announcement is leaning towards the legality of making money by making a derivative work off of a current work. Personally, I think that selling such a manual is wrong in two ways: 1) For the simple fact that it's unauthorized. 2) There are probably much better guides online, and it's probably a ripoff. But in reality, I think that the guide is still legal in the sense that it's a guide that provides support to unknowledgeable people. It's just like CompUSA providing Tech Support for your Windows comp. They basically act as support for a product (while being a ripoff). Though, I don't know exactly if MS gave these guys green lights for doing such a thing.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[ultranova]

So if you had the idea and ability to create a product that could not give you these additional income sources (e.g. movies, music or videogames) you'd either not do it or intentionally cripple your product to require such additional services? That'd still kill off the largest part of the entertainment sector.

Or give it a much-needed liposuction. Movie production isn't particularly efficient today, with literally millions going to pay a single actor. Why ? Because the moviemakers can't make movies that would draw audience without famous actors, and they've forgotten how to make movies without a hundred million dollar budget, requiring an audience of millions before they make a profit.

One would imagine that in the current digital age, when a home computer has the raw power to render better special effects than most old movies had, digitally composite actors over nonexistent scenery and populate it with huge crowds created from nothing, it would be cheaper, not more expensive, to make movies.

Hmm. Maybe I should stop mouthing off and make a movie myself - that would show them. I'll call it... "Spider Chicks From Benus vs. Zombie Viking Women" ;). Action ! Drama ! Female antropomorphic zombie spiders in chainmail bikinis ! A spelling error in the title ! In short, all that's needed for a good low-budget movie ;).

BTW. Am I the only one that likes the colors of old movies more than the ones in newer movies ? The old colors are somehow... softer... than the ones in the new movies.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[MikeBabcock]

"Without Copyright" is a nonstatement.

Unless you specifically release your papers in the public domain, Copyright always applies to anything you write (or draw, etc).

The fact that you do not enforce your rights as the author is also irrelevant. Unlike trademarks, Copyright need not be defended. It simply is.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[DanHibiki]

the real questions is: Why do you need the guide? the guide in question is absolutely useless. It provides no real solutions to difficult/annoying quests and it's out of date (the classes are always under updates). So why pay money for a stack of useless screenshots and Penny-Arcade comics (which you can see on PE) when you can just as easily go on line and find hundreds of free and intuitive guides that cover everything from ability guides to finding that annoying quest item/monster. It's not only a hundred times better then the guides, it's also FREE! Biggest case and point was the Virtual Fighter 4 guide. Big book. What's in it? Combos. Combos that are in the game's help menue! What a fucking scam!

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[darkhitman]

Blizzard isn't suing anyone. The small company is suing Blizzard.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[GiMP]

See, the other (and odd) way of viewing this is that no data is ever produced, only discovered. This goes, perhaps, into both chaos theory and psychology.

A movie file (say, a DivX movie in an .avi container) is simply a really big number. That number has always existed, but only recently computed (aka, discovered). An even deeper thought is that there are many ways that we could potentially materialize physical objects (such as humans) as data -- if you're data, you're just a number. Does this mean that you've always existed? It puts a new spin on religion, doesn't it?

More to the point -- Can numbers be owned? Should they be owned?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Kadin2048]

You're still thinking in terms of the band (or painter, artist, whatever) deriving their income from selling copies of the work. This is not what I'm suggesting. I'm talking about something that's a lot closer to patronage than it is to selling content. People will give money to artists in order to keep them producing new stuff, if they like the artist and value their work. That is where artists and other creative types will support themselves, not off of sales of the finished product. So rather than paying $12 for a CD today, and (hopefully) have that money split between the distributor and the creator, you would pay two separate people: you'd pay for the content to be delivered to you, which would probably cost next-to-nothing, because competition would make much profiteering here difficult, and then you would pay the artist directly, if you wanted to see them continue in business. Nobody would make you do the latter, and artists who couldn't maintain a fanbase that was interested in supporting them would go bankrupt.

Would something like this allow for the number of people in the music industry, particularly the middlemen, that exist now? No, certainly not. It would result in exactly as many artists creating new work as the market was interested in subsidizing through voluntary contributions.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[GiMP]

More to this point.. if we're just data, and we (in essence) multiply.. is the Earth just a big computer? The universe? Makes you wonder if Douglas Adams was really onto something.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Da3vid]

My guess is that trademark covers pluralization as well, but that is just a guess...

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

Consumer demand for new works guarantees that there'll always be money for people who can write them.

But if it's cheaper to buy from a leech, how much of that money is really available for the people who can write them?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Economies don't work this way. You're asking the muscian to shoulder the entire burden of the initial investment and asking the public to make up the investment through good faith that they will keep producting. You can't run by donation because many people will choose not to donate, the public always seeks goods at the lowest price. You can't have an enconomy where people choose to pay for goods or not, it just doesn't work. What happens if the artists music is popular, but not enough people choose to donate, the artist can't pay back the initial investment and can't continue producting. The good faith of the public is not gaurenteed, $12.99 for a CD is gaureneteed.

And we can flip it the other way, what if the artist doen't act in good faith? What if an artists release some intital material and asks for donation to keep producing, yet does nothing?

Capitalism is NOT based on good faith, its contractual, both consumer and producer have to honor their side of the contract for things to work. If one side can choose not to honor their role in the system you create chaos.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[CrimsonAvenger]

Most authors don't make 1% or even 0.5% of their book sales.

Eric Flint once stated (Baen Free Library, Prime Palaver #7),and I have no special reason to doubt him, that "The author will usually get 8% of the retail price" of a mass-market paperback book. If you're making less than that on your books, perhaps you should consider a different publisher.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Except we're talking about luxuries, not necessities

That is irrelevant. We're talking about commodities. Whether that commodity is vital or not does not change its nature. One item of a given commodity is basically the same as any other. One instance of the text of a book is the same as any other instance. While one could imagine differences in cost due to the copies the work is embodied in (a cheap paperback as opposed to a fine parchment folio) the work itself is constant and should not result in different pricing.

If you need a character with the amount of backstory that Mickey Mouse has then you have to create that backstory yourself instead of resting on someone else's laurels.

Just like Disney didn't draw upon established characters such as Snow White, or Cinderella, or Robin Hood? No. There is just as much value in a derivative work as there is in an original work. There is nothing wrong or uncreative about refining existing material, or altering it, or reinterpreting it. Many of our finest works are highly derivative. Look at Shakespeare -- widely acclaimed as the best author in the English language, and almost everything he did was based on earlier work by others.

There are good reasons for copyright, but you're nowhere near them.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

It's unusual, but not unreasonable to say you own yourself.

It is unreasonable. In fact it's disgusting.

There are three conditions that must be met for something to fall within the definition of property. 1) the owner must be able to use it; 2) the owner must be able to lend it out and recover it again; 3) the owner must be able to transfer it away or otherwise dispose of it.

Can you sell yourself to someone else, permanently and irrevocably? That's a necessary element in order for something to be property. It's also slavery, it's abhorrent, and the practice should be eliminated wherever and whenever it is found.

People have an inherent right to freedom in their own person, which covers all the things you talk about. But it is an inalienable right; they cannot surrender their freedom and lose it. It is a right that one can fail to exercise, or which others may infringe upon, but you've always got it, and we should make damn well sure that it can be used at will.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Having done many "works for higher" in my life I am very familiar with the topic.

It shows.

First, it's "works for hire." You seem to have gotten caught up on a homonym.

I have already clearly explained that the "artist" that work for blizzard, though they created the "art" have no legal right to it because they have an agreement with Blizzard transfering the copyright.

Second, while this greatly depends on how Blizzard is organized internally, and how they arrange for people to work on their projects, an artist that is their employee does not transfer copyrights to Blizzard. Rather, as the employer, in a work for hire scenario, Blizzard is the artist, and their employee is just the guy who carries out what they want. It's similar to how a director might be the author of a movie, but he has some other people pointing cameras at things under his instruction.

It's a good thing you're so familiar with the topic, eh?

Basically it makes the assumption that the unauthorized WoW guide does not decrease the value of Blizzards intelectual property, and even goes as far as to say it increases it. This is false speculation which does not take into account Blizzards licensing fees on authorized guides.

But do they have a right to exclusively license guides? Remember, game rules can only be protected with a patent, provided they satisfy the requirements for patentability. Otherwise they're public domain. A description of them, or software that implements them, might be copyrightable. And the art associated with it might be too. And the name might be trademarkable. But the rules are a pain in the ass to protect. I only know of one game rule patent, in fact.

The guide appears to be a description of how to manipulate the rules. It's not particularly different than a book that tells you the winning strategy for Uno, or chess, or whatever. The fact that the creator of the game can write such a book doesn't mean much if everyone else has the right to do so as well. Their loss of value at the hands of fair and lawful competition is just tough luck.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[cpt kangarooski]

Mental trauma IS physical harm

No, it's not.

kidnapping someone by definition is harm

No, it's not.

This is why we have a number of different intentional torts, such as: intentional infliction of emotional distress (or assault, depending on the circumstances involved); false imprisonment (which, under the right circumstances, doesn't require harm or even the threat thereof); and battery, which covers physical harm.

Perhaps you'd like to read up on the subject?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

If he were smart, he would've found a customer base to pay him for the act of writing and recording, i.e. his labor, beforehand. Then it wouldn't matter who sold copies, because the musician wouldn't need to make a huge profit on them - he's already been paid.

So an investment model, but one where the end results of the investment are proffitted on primarily by me, the copyist, who does virtually no work for greater profit. Good system, the artist get paid for his labor and possibly pays back his innitial costs, I get paid more for doing far less work using the fruits of his labor.

Should grocery stores now demand Coke give them their products for free because people oringinally invested in their company? Does Coke need to get out of the grocery buisness? No, because the only reason you're arguing this is because music is a medium that is easy to duplicate, soft drinks are not. Yet why should muscians be punished because their end product is easily dupilicated (yet not easily created), why should someone with a product that is difficult to duplicate be able to profit from the end product of their incestment, while somone with an easy to duplicate product must hand that profit over to a copyist?

Not necessarily... that's fraud, not just copyright infringement. Just because you'd be allowed to sell (modified) copies of the book doesn't mean you'd also be allowed to lie to your customers about its authorship.

You're right, but the author has to proove that I commited the fraud, I am innocent until prooven guilty. I could claim my version is an earlier revision he didn't release but I got hold of, If he has no ownership of the words I can do as I will with them. It's his word against mine. With a copyright the law is on his side, the case is cut and dry, I committed fraud because the copyritten material is different than what I published. Without it who's to say which verision is the original, no trusted, independant third party has verified it, the burden of proof is pushed onto the author. Again a non-copyrighten system punishes the artist.

Indeed. The moral is: it's time for artists to get out of the copying business and charge for their actual work, just like everyone else.

Great idea. While we're at it lets take inventors out of the production buiness. They don't need to sell the things they spend their lives creating, we pay them to do research, its the marketers and builders who should profit most from their ideas. I mean creating something is worth way less than selling it right?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[mothas]

"Well, technically what happens is that the copyright holder gains an exclusive right. He doesn't get any more of a right to create the derivatives than he had before. After all, copyright doesn't grant rights to do things; it grants rights to stop others. This is why someone who makes child porn has a copyright on it but can still get in trouble for it. Nor does anyone really lose a right. He just can, within the confines of the copyright, prevent others from exercising their rights. The exclusivity is limited, and beyond that (e.g. fair use derivatives) people can still exercise their right. When the copyright runs out, no one regains rights, but instead no one can stop them from exercising the rights they've had all along."

Hmm. That didn't make much sense to me. How are you differentiating between a right lost and a right prevented?

To clarify my position: If I have a right to perform some action, others must perforce have a duty to allow me to do so - kind of the defining characteristic of a right as opposed to a privilage. If that duty is removed and replaced with a right to prevent me instead, I have by definition lost my right since there is no longer a corresponding duty. Thus I contend that copyright law strips 300 million people or so of the right to make derivative works, and in doing so reduces their freedom of speech, and in return, 1 person gets to litigate.

Mind you, I don't object to copyright in principle - the rights lost may in fact be a reasonable price to pay to make certain types of careers more profitable; but it seems like a poor euphemism to call this "creating a right".

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[deblau]

First, I at least have never felt that creation and invention wouldn't occur without copyrights and patents, respectively. Second, however, the quantity of those acts would likely decrease sharply.

Do you have any solid evidence to support your last statement? To my knowledge, there have never been any scientific case studies on the effect of a lack of copyright on mass-market creativity, because copyright law is not a variable which can be clinically controlled. Anglo-American history has had author copyrights for almost three hundred years now -- I don't know how one would even attempt such a study. Merely polling artists is insufficient, since there are too many uncontrollable variables to consider. And although the Framers obviously thought copyright important enough to include in the Constitution, it is only a suggested method of promoting progress. Government grants and subsidies are another; in my opinion, the NEA has significantly promoted the arts. Congress clearly has the power to enact laws supporting these systems already, without invoking clause 8. And although the regimes are different, I could also make a nearly identical argument for patents.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[xero314]

Like I said previously I'm not arguing semantics, but I do thank you for adding some clarification to "works for hire" (Sorry for the previous use of higher, maybe it was Freudian). I do happen to think you, just like I did previously, over simplified the situtation. Some employees of Blizzard would be considered atrists producing a "work for hire," such as those in the design departments (graphic or otherwise), while others may not. In the end it is the same net effect, he copyright is maintained by the Blizzard Corporate entity.

having not read the guide in question I don't really know the content. But it would seem to me to be very difficult to right a guide on a computer game without referencing something other than abstract game rules. Even mentioning a location in the game could be a violation of copyright or trademark.

I only know of one game rule patent, in fact.

I'm sure I could think of more than one, but Richard Garfield's (Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro) proccess of changing the orientation of a peice to signify it's use is one I know off the top of my head.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

But if it's cheaper to buy from a leech, how much of that money is really available for the people who can write them?

You seem to be missing the point. A leech doesn't write new works. If I want to see a new movie, I'm going to give my money to someone who can produce a new movie; I'm not going to buy an old movie at the burned DVD shop down the road and expect it to magically become new.

It's simple: Consumers want to see new works written and are willing to spend money to further that goal. The only way new works will get written is if the producers are paid to write them, or if the producers choose to write them for free. Therefore, money will flow from consumers to producers, unless the producers who are willing to work for free can produce enough to satisfy demand.

Remember, "leeches" can only make copies of something that's been written. They can't compete with an artist who actually produces new works, unless that artist chooses to enter the copying market himself. If, however, he stays in the business of writing new works, and charges for his effort and time rather than for files or plastic discs, he only has to worry about competing with other artists who can write better works or charge less for their effort.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

There are three conditions that must be met for something to fall within the definition of property. 1) the owner must be able to use it; 2) the owner must be able to lend it out and recover it again; 3) the owner must be able to transfer it away or otherwise dispose of it.

That may be a legal definition of property (judging by your sig), but I doubt it's the definition the original poster was using. I personally think defining property as something you have exclusive control over the use of is fine for this discussion.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

So an investment model, but one where the end results of the investment are proffitted on primarily by me, the copyist, who does virtually no work for greater profit. Good system, the artist get paid for his labor and possibly pays back his innitial costs, I get paid more for doing far less work using the fruits of his labor.

Huh? What on earth makes you think you'll make more money by selling copies of a book or movie than the producer made by writing it? How much do you think people will be willing to pay for a file or a plastic disc when they can easily make their own copies for no more than the cost of media?

The original author can charge whatever he wants, because he's the only one who can provide the service he's offering, but copyists have to compete with other copyists, the internet, and the DVD burner.

the only reason you're arguing this is because music is a medium that is easy to duplicate, soft drinks are not. Yet why should muscians be punished because their end product is easily dupilicated (yet not easily created)

Punished? No.

The thing is, a movie, a book, a song, or any other piece of data is not a "product". It's a number, and as such, calling it "easily duplicated" is an understatement. It is fundamentally uncontrollable, uncontainable, and unownable.

A musician or movie producer doesn't have a manufacturing job, he has a service job: essentially, arranging data into a form that people like. Money goes in, data comes out.

Now consider plumbing, another service job. When you have a problem with your toilet, you call the plumber, he comes by and fixes it, you pay him for his time, and then he leaves. You don't have to pay him again.

Is he being "punished" for the nature of his work by only getting paid once? Would it be more fair if he came out and fixed the toilet for free, and then you had to pay him a few bucks every time you flushed it from then on? Of course not - flushing the toilet is something you can do on your own, so it hardly makes sense for you to pay him for that instead of the service you can't do on your own. In fact, that business model couldn't work without invasive technological or legal means to make sure that every flush is accounted for, which is more complicated (and less reliable) than just letting the plumber collect payment at the time of service. But that's exactly what you're suggesting is needed for artists.

I could claim my version is an earlier revision he didn't release but I got hold of, If he has no ownership of the words I can do as I will with them. It's his word against mine.

Something tells me your word wouldn't hold up in court. "Seriously, Your Honor, Harry Potter was a Nazi in the original manuscript. I found it in Rowling's garbage can a few years ago. No, I can't prove that; don't you trust me?" That's one step above "My dog ate my homework." ;)

With a copyright the law is on his side, the case is cut and dry, I committed fraud because the copyritten material is different than what I published. [...] Again a non-copyrighten system punishes the artist.

You don't need copyright to make fraud claims possible, all you need is a voluntary registration system so you can know who published what and when, and a law that allows authors to remove their name from works when it can't be proved that they wrote them. Punishing people for lying to their customers has nothing to do with punishing people for making copies.

Think about it. If the author can't prove that the story was different when he wrote it, how is he (or anyone) going to prove that he even wrote it in the first place and thus holds the copyright? You seem to think any kooky story about the origin of a work will hold up in court; if that's the case, how can any unregistered copyrights hold up at all, if any random nut can file a lawsuit saying he wrote Harry Potter?

While we're at it lets take inventors out of the production buiness. They don

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

A movie file (say, a DivX movie in an .avi container) is simply a really big number. That number has always existed, but only recently computed (aka, discovered).

Indeed. If you had unlimited time and storage, you could generate every possible file of a given length (say 350MB), throw out the ones that aren't valid DivX files, and watch them all, and you would see every episode of every TV show that has ever been made, ever will be made, and ever won't be made. You'd see George W. Bush winning Jeopardy and Stephen Hawking throwing a 90-yard pass to win the Super Bowl. You'd see yourself, sitting at your computer right now, with Zombie Hitler standing inches behind you ready to eat your brains. All those files are just numbers, and they all exist right now - we just don't know where to find them yet.

It's like if you had an amazingly huge back yard, and there were treasure chests buried in it.. somewhere.. but you didn't know where. The artist is a dowser who comes by and offers to find them for you. He's doing you a great service by pointing out the locations of the treasure chests, and you should pay him for that, but he doesn't own them and he deserves no say over how you spend the gold coins therein.

In fact, it's not even really your back yard; it's public land and everyone has an equal claim to ownership. And they're not just any old gold coins, but magical coins such that you can take as many out of the chest as you want and it'll never become empty. It would be ridiculous for anyone to impose limits on who may take them or distribute them.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[KDR_11k]

You seem to be missing the point. A leech doesn't write new works. If I want to see a new movie, I'm going to give my money to someone who can produce a new movie; I'm not going to buy an old movie at the burned DVD shop down the road and expect it to magically become new.

No but most people will see that a new movie is released and head down to the burned DVD shop and grab their cheap copy there.

It's simple: Consumers want to see new works written and are willing to spend money to further that goal.

I don't think the vast majority gives a fuck about who gets their money and what that means for the future. Hell, even corporations have trouble thinking that far ahead! Consumers don't care about what buying from Walmart instead of Mom&Pop stores means for the retail market, why should they care here?

Remember, "leeches" can only make copies of something that's been written. They can't compete with an artist who actually produces new works, unless that artist chooses to enter the copying market himself. If, however, he stays in the business of writing new works, and charges for his effort and time rather than for files or plastic discs, he only has to worry about competing with other artists who can write better works or charge less for their effort.

Well, if that artist is content working for months on a piece and selling only one of it, so be it. I hear that works for painters. Question is of course if people are going to pay 10000$ for a music CD or a book (which of course the leeches wouldn't have copied yet since the only copy of it exists in the writer's property). If only one copy is sold it's easier for that copy to get lost or damaged before it can be duplicated (e.g. because the new owner wants to keep it his status symbol). If you start making copies after the original sold, who'd pay the price for the original if the copy costs less than one thousandth of the original's pricetag?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Bloke down the pub]

Here's lego's legal page. Count how many times the word "legos" appears on it.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops. Here: http://www.lego.com/eng/info/legal.asp.

P.S. http://www.lego.com/eng/info/default.asp?page=fair play says:

"Proper Use of the LEGO Trademark on a Web Site
If the LEGO trademark is used at all, it should always be used as an adjective, not as a noun. For example, say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGO BRICKS". Never say "MODELS BUILT OF LEGOs"... "

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

No but most people will see that a new movie is released and head down to the burned DVD shop and grab their cheap copy there.

And that's fine, right? Remember, everyone in the production of that movie has already been paid - if they hadn't been paid, they wouldn't have put all that work into the movie. If they want to make money by selling copies in addition to what they already charged for creating the movie in the first place, they can make and sell DVDs just like everyone else, and it'll be a fair competition.

Question is of course if people are going to pay 10000$ for a music CD or a book (which of course the leeches wouldn't have copied yet since the only copy of it exists in the writer's property). If only one copy is sold it's easier for that copy to get lost or damaged before it can be duplicated (e.g. because the new owner wants to keep it his status symbol). If you start making copies after the original sold, who'd pay the price for the original if the copy costs less than one thousandth of the original's pricetag?

They're not paying for the original. They're paying for the act of recording the album or writing the book. Once it's written, it's free for everyone to use.

Obviously, a single person isn't likely to spend thousands of dollars funding a new album... which is why you set up a system where all the fans of a certain type of music can each pay a little bit. They're not paying for a product they can keep to themselves; they're paying for the privilege of living in a world where they get to hear whatever new music the artist comes up with. It works for political campaigns, and it can work for artists.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Hognoxious]

It works for political campaigns, and it can work for artists.

Hmm. Maybe I should open a restaurant on that principle. No menu, but give me some money in advance and maybe I'll cook you something. If you're lucky it will be edible. But if you don't want to pay, you can eat for free anyway.

Your system is basically pass the hat round, and we'll see what the song/movie turns out like. Do you really think that will work? What if it turns out to be crap - can I have a refund? Do I get a say in the content - I've always been a fan of design by committee.

Ridiculous, naive, unworkable.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Huh? What on earth makes you think you'll make more money by selling copies of a book or movie than the producer made by writing it? How much do you think people will be willing to pay for a file or a plastic disc when they can easily make their own copies for no more than the cost of media?

The original author can charge whatever he wants, because he's the only one who can provide the service he's offering, but copyists have to compete with other copyists, the internet, and the DVD burner.

Like I said, a copyist won't just sell the work of one person and isn't going to be just selling the work alone but potentially services that go with it. Considering the absolutly tiny overhead cost of a copyist he is almost gaurenteed to make more than the creators as long as he is marginally clever.

This also assumes all artists are already somehow established and can set a price based on previous work. What about the new guy trying to pay back his initial investment? How can he demand a fair price for his work when he can't demonstrate any current work? Artists are a disadvantage as they can't attract inventors with a good buisness plan, they all have the same buisness plan the issue is with the quality of the end product which is unkown.

The thing is, a movie, a book, a song, or any other piece of data is not a "product". It's a number, and as such, calling it "easily duplicated" is an understatement. It is fundamentally uncontrollable, uncontainable, and unownable. A musician or movie producer doesn't have a manufacturing job, he has a service job: essentially, arranging data into a form that people like. Money goes in, data comes out.

Absurd. It takes many people long amounts of time to create sowftware. Initial investment on a software product will NEVER cover the operating costs of the company (I work in software, I know this). By this coin car factory workers are service employees, money goes in cars come out. Why should they demand we pay for the cars? Its simple because THEY NEED TO RECOUP THE COST OF MAKING THE CAR! Same thing with movies or music the intital investment will never be recouped if the final product is not sold as a product (which it is). JUst because you can easily copy a product doesn't mean you get to say its not a product, you're only trying to justify getting something for nothing.

Now consider plumbing, another service job. When you have a problem with your toilet, you call the plumber, he comes by and fixes it, you pay him for his time, and then he leaves. You don't have to pay him again.

Again with the plumbers. Plumbers don't create an end product, that why they are a service. Movies and music are end products. When you call a plumber you need he service, when you want music or movies you are only interested in aquiring the end result, the actual end product.

Is he being "punished" for the nature of his work by only getting paid once? Would it be more fair if he came out and fixed the toilet for free, and then you had to pay him a few bucks every time you flushed it from then on? Of course not - flushing the toilet is something you can do on your own, so it hardly makes sense for you to pay him for that instead of the service you can't do on your own. In fact, that business model couldn't work without invasive technological or legal means to make sure that every flush is accounted for, which is more complicated (and less reliable) than just letting the plumber collect payment at the time of service. But that's exactly what you're suggesting is needed for artists.

Guess what? You don't pay for music everytime you listen to it. Why? Because its a finished product you pay for once. This arguement makes zero sense.

Something tells me your word wouldn't hold up in court. "Seriously, Your Honor, Harry Potter was a Nazi in the original manuscript. I found it in Rowling's garbage can a few years ago. No, I can't prove that; don't you trust me?" That's one step above "My

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Hmm. Maybe I should open a restaurant on that principle. [...] But if you don't want to pay, you can eat for free anyway.

Ah, what a great idea that would be, if not for a little problem known as "the obvious differences between data and physical property such as food". There is only so much steak to go around, but songs are limitless.

Your system is basically pass the hat round, and we'll see what the song/movie turns out like. Do you really think that will work? What if it turns out to be crap - can I have a refund?

What if the CD you pick up at Best Buy tomorrow turns out to be crap - can you have a refund? (Answer: no.) What if the haircut you get doesn't turn out to be what you expected? What if your maid misses a spot? You can try to get a refund, but your best bet is just to avoid giving them any more of your money.

But to seriously answer your question, there are ways to resolve most problems like this before they start. A good description of what the artist intends to release will reduce confusion up front. Put the money in escrow to begin with, so the artist can't just take it and run. Release it according to some predetermined schedule, which may include a chance for the contributors to vote on whether they like what he's turning out and want him to continue.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Like I said, a copyist won't just sell the work of one person and isn't going to be just selling the work alone but potentially services that go with it. Considering the absolutly tiny overhead cost of a copyist he is almost gaurenteed to make more than the creators as long as he is marginally clever.

How could he make more than the creators? The creators have already been paid for their work, remember, and if they want to make some extra money on the side, they can enter the copying business and compete with these copyists on the same footing.

They don't need to recoup their initial costs in the price of copies, as long as they make sure they've already been paid for their initial costs by the time they finish producing the original work.

If it turns out that running a copying business, making tiny profits by printing books and burning DVDs from a variety of authors (and selling whatever other services might be associated), is more profitable than being an author, then I really don't see a problem with that. They're two separate lines of work, and there's no reason to think all artists would jump ship and become copyists. Running a car dealership might be more profitable than running a gas station (or vice versa), but we don't worry about all the gas stations shutting down and becoming dealerships that sell cars for which there is no gas.

What about the new guy trying to pay back his initial investment? How can he demand a fair price for his work when he can't demonstrate any current work?

Surely he has something to demonstrate. Why would he jump right into being a professional artist if he's never written anything before in his life?

Initial investment on a software product will NEVER cover the operating costs of the company (I work in software, I know this).

Sounds like you need to ask your investors for enough to cover those costs, then.

By this coin car factory workers are service employees, money goes in cars come out. Why should they demand we pay for the cars?

Um.. because each car requires its own materials and labor. Making two cars costs (about) twice as much as making one car, because you need twice as much steel and twice as much time to put it together. You need the manufacturer to provide those materials and labor for you if you want a car, and the manufacturer can set a price.

Making two copies of the same song, on the other hand, costs about the same as making one copy or a thousand copies, and the artist doesn't need to be involved in any of the copying.

JUst because you can easily copy a product doesn't mean you get to say its not a product, you're only trying to justify getting something for nothing.

Heh. OK, is the number 1 a product? How about the number 1,234,567,890? How about the largest known prime number or the age of the universe? How long does a number have to be, or how much effort must be invested in its discovery, before you'll call it a product?

YOU ARE RE-DEFINING COPYRIGHT LAW. Perhaps in a more limited way, but you're setting up a system to record and protect the orignal ideas of a certain person.

Look, if you want to call a law solely focused on preventing fraud "copyright", I can't stop you. You can call it Frank Sinatra if you want.

But unlike actual copyright law as it exists today, this law wouldn't impose punishments for making or distributing copies of anything. There is no "right" required to "copy", there is no "protection" for "original ideas", there's only an obligation not to falsely claim that a person wrote something that they didn't - just like you can't build a car from scratch in your back yard and sell it as a Toyota.

It's more similar to trademark law than copyright, really. Trademarks let you know that the car you're buying really came from the designers, engineers, and manufacturers you've come to know as "Toyota". Attribution lets you know that the CD you're buying really came from the musicians you

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

How could he make more than the creators? The creators have already been paid for their work, remember, and if they want to make some extra money on the side, they can enter the copying business and compete with these copyists on the same footing.

They don't need to recoup their initial costs in the price of copies, as long as they make sure they've already been paid for their initial costs by the time they finish producing the original work.

So in effect they are foced to be non-profit because their medium is easily copied. That doesn't encourage people in a captialist society. But something that is not easily copied is free to profit from their labor.

Sounds like you need to ask your investors for enough to cover those costs, then.

And how do I pay them back? People invest in things expecting a return. Software can take millions of dollars to develope in labor and equiment costs. Its a quaint idea to think I can get the public to finance this but its completely inept, I can't pitch a software idea to thousands of people because I don't know exactly how much its going to cost in whole to build. And why would anyone pay me to make a product if they can just get it for free when its done? To start buisness ventures you need investors and you have to pay back the investors and then some, the world enconomy is not a charity system.

Um.. because each car requires its own materials and labor. Making two cars costs (about) twice as much as making one car, because you need twice as much steel and twice as much time to put it together. You need the manufacturer to provide those materials and labor for you if you want a car, and the manufacturer can set a price.

Making two copies of the same song, on the other hand, costs about the same as making one copy or a thousand copies, and the artist doesn't need to be involved in any of the copying.

And creating songs doesn't require labor or equipment? Or software for that matter since they share a data medium. Just because it doesn't take continual effort to replicate makes it worthless? That is what you are saying, because if only the labor is worth paying for then the final product has no value. That is nonsense because the consumer isn't interested in the labor, they are interested in the final product.

OK, is the number 1 a product? How about the number 1,234,567,890? How about the largest known prime number or the age of the universe? How long does a number have to be, or how much effort must be invested in its discovery, before you'll call it a product?

How doesn this have anything to do with the discussion at hand? Numbers aren't products because anyone can access them, they're concepts anyone can grasp so they have no commercial value. However data or music have value because not everyone can create them. Thats pretty basic logic.

Yes, I understand that and I have been addressing it. If you pay for the cost of production at the time of production, then the artist doesn't need to sell copies to recoup those costs - you've already paid him.

So these buisnesses are forced to becomone non-profit ventures. Sounds great for people who invested in any data based industry "oh we decided because the medium can be replicated that you won't recieve any return on your investment." That will really encourage them to give more money for future innovation.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Some_Llama]

"If MS didn't charge for the updates it would obviously not be a new source of income. If Joe set up a mirror offering the updates for free MS couldn't rely on that income anymore."

They don't charge for updates, which adds to the value of purchasing the media, again, why would I go to some third party website to get updates when i could go to the manufacturers source, a third party could have malicious reasons for providing bandwidth with no financial gain.

"Yes and Daggon wants to know how you'd generate that extra income if the data on the medium does not need any additional services (e.g. a music CD)."

Well the whole point the parent was making (and thus my reason for asking if he had read the parent) is that the medium offered a basic program which is enhanced by the additonal offerings that the customer could purchase..

Did you read the parent? I really don't want to further expound on someone else's idea, i was just trying to clarify what I thought was a pretty succinct point.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

So in effect they are foced to be non-profit because their medium is easily copied.

Incorrect. Are barbers or mechanics "forced to be non-profit"? Of course not. Their profit is included in the price they charge for cutting hair or fixing cars, just like a musician's profit would be included in the price he charges for writing or performing music.

And why would anyone pay me to make a product if they can just get it for free when its done?

Because they know that if no one pays, it won't get written at all. Again--I can't make this clear enough, apparently--they aren't paying for a copy of the software. They're paying for the privilege of living in a world where that software exists. If they don't care enough about this software to pay you to write it, then they may be able to get it for free once it's written... or they may never have access to it at all. If they do care enough, then they'll pay because they want you to write it.

And creating songs doesn't require labor or equipment? Or software for that matter since they share a data medium.

Of course it does - once. Making copies doesn't require any more labor or equipment than consumers are willing to put up themselves (bandwidth and media).

Just because it doesn't take continual effort to replicate makes it worthless? That is what you are saying, because if only the labor is worth paying for then the final product has no value. That is nonsense because the consumer isn't interested in the labor, they are interested in the final product.

No, that is not what I'm saying. That's a strawman.

The consumer is interested in the labor because that's what determines the quality of the song. A song that Radiohead spends months writing will probably be better than one Britney Spears spends half an hour "writing". Radiohead's musical labor is worth more than Britney's (in the eyes of Radiohead fans, at least).

The "final product" you seem concerned with, however, isn't a song - it's a copy of a song. And I don't think people really care about those. They can make their own copies if you give them the information they need to do so.

Numbers aren't products because anyone can access them, they're concepts anyone can grasp so they have no commercial value. However data or music have value because not everyone can create them.

I hate to break it to you, but a piece of data is a number. Just as one byte represents a number from 0-255, and four bytes represent a number from 0 to 2^32 - 1, the 5 million bytes a song takes up also represent a (much bigger) number. If I gave you a mathematical equation whose solution was that number, you could solve the equation and listen to the song by feeding the solution into an MP3 player. The number, the MP3 file, and the song are all equivalent.

Also, what do you mean, "not everyone can create them"? Do you think just anyone can "create" the number representing the speed of light? It took a lot of research to come up with that number... well, not to come up with the number itself exactly, but to realize that that particular number represented the speed of light. So, is it a product or not?

So these buisnesses are forced to becomone non-profit ventures.

Nope. The artist can charge whatever he wants - the "cost of production" from the perspective of an outsider isn't just the artist's living expenses, it includes his profit as well. He sets the price because he's the one performing the service. If he thinks he can write a song in three months, incurring $2500 in living expenses, then he can charge $10,000 for the act of writing that song if he wants - and if his audience is willing to pay it.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Ok, parting shot and I'm done with this one as we seem to be making no headway with eachother.

Because they know that if no one pays, it won't get written at all. Again--I can't make this clear enough, apparently--they aren't paying for a copy of the software. They're paying for the privilege of living in a world where that software exists. If they don't care enough about this software to pay you to write it, then they may be able to get it for free once it's written... or they may never have access to it at all. If they do care enough, then they'll pay because they want you to write it.

So we realy on the publics good faith to make these things? I don't find that comforting. Also what happens when the end product fails to be produced or isn't what was expected\promised? We paid up front, where is the accountablity if the money's already been spent? Also this makes it impossible to compare products, I can't have somone let me know if a product is any good if I have to pay to have it made. That doesn't serve the public good. We now have to micro maanage artists whenever we want media? This is far too nebulus, how am supposed to get what I want in this kind of system? I can't just fund every artist and hope one one of them turns out something I like. The power of the consumer is choice, how can I choose from things that don't exist yet?

The "final product" you seem concerned with, however, isn't a song - it's a copy of a song. And I don't think people really care about those. They can make their own copies if you give them the information they need to do so.

No, its a song. A song I could not create myself and thus should give due payment to its creator. The medium its on doesn't matter, that music was crafted by someone, that arangment of sounds or bits or whatever has a value because that is what I want to aquire.

I hate to break it to you, but a piece of data is a number. Just as one byte represents a number from 0-255, and four bytes represent a number from 0 to 2^32 - 1, the 5 million bytes a song takes up also represent a (much bigger) number. If I gave you a mathematical equation whose solution was that number, you could solve the equation and listen to the song by feeding the solution into an MP3 player. The number, the MP3 file, and the song are all equivalent.

No they aren't. Data is numbers true, but its not random numbers, its aranged. And aranged in way I couln't do myself. Thats why I pay for the aragnement. Salt is naturally occuring mineral, but I pay for packaged processed salt because I am unable to do that myself. Numbers are free conceptual knowledge, but I pay for useful or entertaining arangements of them.

Also, what do you mean, "not everyone can create them"? Do you think just anyone can "create" the number representing the speed of light? It took a lot of research to come up with that number... well, not to come up with the number itself exactly, but to realize that that particular number represented the speed of light. So, is it a product or not?

You're making my case for me. Not everyone could come up with that number, we had to research it. Thats what I mean not everyone can create them. Just because the componenet digits are common knowledge doesn't mean the number can be instantly arrived at. So yes the number representing the speed of light could theoretically be a product, but its logically impossible to restrict its use once it is known, so its not something you could sell.

I agree its a nice way to look at things if we could just pay people to do things we wanted and they would always deliver the things we want. But thats naive. The reason we pay for things after they made in our society is because we've learned that we cannot trust people unless they have a specific incetive to please us.

It doesn't matter because the system of thinking on this isn't going to change, I'm fairly certain of that. Feel free to quote me till the end of time on that.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Hognoxious]

songs are limitless.

Copies of a particular song are unlimited, or as near as makes any difference. But songs are limited by, among other things, the time and talent of the people who write them. Or do you think tunes fall out of the sky & lyrics grow on trees?

What if the CD you pick up at Best Buy tomorrow turns out to be crap - can you have a refund? (Answer: no.)

Maybe I should invent a thing where some person listens to it, and writes or talks about it. People could get an idea whether they'd probably like it or not. And isn't it a pity that there isn't something called the radio so I could listen to it before I buy it? Better yet, a radio that shows pictures. Nah, it'll never catch on.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Also what happens when the end product fails to be produced or isn't what was expected\promised? We paid up front, where is the accountablity if the money's already been spent?

One word: escrow.

This is far too nebulus, how am supposed to get what I want in this kind of system? I can't just fund every artist and hope one one of them turns out something I like. The power of the consumer is choice, how can I choose from things that don't exist yet?

Same way you choose anyone else who provides a service. You go by their reputation or examples of their work, and if they have neither, you demand a price low enough that you won't be disappointed if they turn out to be no good - or just move on and find someone who does have a reputation.

Data is numbers true, but its not random numbers, its aranged. And aranged in way I couln't do myself. Thats why I pay for the aragnement.

Agreed. I'm more than happy to pay someone to arrange numbers in a way that will sound pleasing. I just don't want to pay for something I can do myself.

You're making my case for me. [...] So yes the number representing the speed of light could theoretically be a product, but its logically impossible to restrict its use once it is known, so its not something you could sell.

Now who's making whose case? It's logically impossible to restrict the use of any data once it's known, whether that data is the speed of light or the waveform of a song.

You certainly could try to sell the speed of light as a product, just like record companies (try to) sell music today. Scientists and students who needed to use it could go to the research store and buy a piece of paper with the speed of light printed on it, or maybe even pay online with their credit cards and have the speed of light emailed to them. The companies selling it would have an even harder time keeping people from sharing it than record companies do, since it's smaller than an MP3 file and therefore easier to copy, but I think you'd agree that the ease of copying doesn't really matter, right?

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Copies of a particular song are unlimited, or as near as makes any difference.

Yup, that's what I meant.

Maybe I should invent a thing where some person listens to it, and writes or talks about it. People could get an idea whether they'd probably like it or not. And isn't it a pity that there isn't something called the radio so I could listen to it before I buy it? Better yet, a radio that shows pictures. Nah, it'll never catch on.

Huh. So, if all this stuff existed, you'd have to rely on someone else to tell you whether or not to buy something? (How would you know you could trust him, and what would you do if his tastes didn't match yours?) Or you'd have to just wait for songs to come on this "radio", which I presume would have unpredictable schedules and only play a small selection of music, so you could hear them and decide whether or not to buy? I don't know if that could work.

But you know, if it were someday possible to download songs over the internet, you could hear any music you wanted, explore links between bands instantly, and listen to them as much as you want before deciding whether it's worth spending money on. I wonder if something like that will ever come to pass.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Daggon]

Okay I know I said I was done but there are three things here I wanted to point to, and then I'm done, promise. Agree to disagree and that :)

One word: escrow.

Well you can't mean holding the investment in escrow, because then it couldn't be spent to cover the creation costs. So you must mean holding the work in escrow, like they do with source code. Problem here is what good is a half finsihed song or piece of software to the general public? You still lose your investment. Still don't think adequate accountablility is provided here and getting part of the finsihed product in case of default doesn't help the average consumer as he doesn't have the means of completeing it.

Same way you choose anyone else who provides a service. You go by their reputation or examples of their work, and if they have neither, you demand a price low enough that you won't be disappointed if they turn out to be no good - or just move on and find someone who does have a reputation.

Thats fine if I want a service, and thats the problem I don't want a service, I want a product. The value to the consumer here is the final prouct. What happens when a product offers certain features on the front end, but doesn't have them when completed (this happens a lot btw), in the system you describe I'm stuck paying for a product I may not have wanted, or doesn't do what I expected. In the current market I can read reviews and comparisons and choose my product based on that. With this I just have to hope that the product does what I want when its done. It doesn't even have to be a shoddy product, it can be very good, but maybe I invested because they said it would have some specific feature, but in the process of creation that feature got removed. I get stuck paying for something I didn't want.

In fact its also the same case in the way of services, lets go back to the plumber. Lets say the plumber does a bad job and breaks my toilet instead of fixing it. I can refuse to pay him. Most services don't charge up front. If I pay a muscian to make some music and its not what I wanted, I'm stuck, he delivered but I'm not happy. Thats the disconnect here, I don't buy things based on the reputation of the manufacturer alone, I've been burned by that, I'll bet you have too.

It's logically impossible to restrict the use of any data once it's known

So, data encryption is logically impossible? Isn't that the restriction of known data? The complexity of the data plays a factor here. The number representing the speed of light is very simple, therefore yes, it is logically impossible to restrict its use. However the source code to Windows XP is much more complex and therefore it is logically possible to restrict its use. So theres a scale factor you're not considering here.

Ok, done for real this time.

Re:More reasons for repudiating copyright and IP

[Mr2001]

Well you can't mean holding the investment in escrow, because then it couldn't be spent to cover the creation costs.

I do mean holding the payment in escrow, or at least part of it for a period of time, according to some schedule to be negotiated between the artist and his customers. Even if he's flat broke at first, he can take out a loan to cover his expenses until he gets paid.

It doesn't even have to be a shoddy product, it can be very good, but maybe I invested because they said it would have some specific feature, but in the process of creation that feature got removed. I get stuck paying for something I didn't want.

If what they deliver doesn't match what they promised, then don't pay. You might be "stuck" if your payment system consists of handing over a sack of cash up front, but don't tell me you couldn't think up a better way to handle the transaction if you gave it 5 minutes' thought.

If they deliver what they promised, but it turns out you didn't want that after all, you're in the same position as someone who orders Peking duck (which isn't cheap) only to find out he doesn't really like the taste of duck. You might be able to negotiate a refund, but I don't think most people would say you deserve one.

So, data encryption is logically impossible? Isn't that the restriction of known data?

No, it's the opposite. Encryption can't keep the waveform of a song secret any better than it can keep the speed of light secret.

The purpose of encryption is to keep data unknown except to you and the intended recipient. You can't prevent someone from sharing the ciphertext; all you can do is keep him from decrypting it without knowing a key that you guard very carefully. If the plaintext (or the key) ever becomes known to someone who doesn't want to play by your rules, game over.

The complexity of the data plays a factor here. The number representing the speed of light is very simple, therefore yes, it is logically impossible to restrict its use. However the source code to Windows XP is much more complex and therefore it is logically possible to restrict its use. So theres a scale factor you're not considering here.

Oh, is there? Maybe you could explain it, because it seems to me you're just waving your hands and saying "this number is longer, so it's totally different".

The source code to Windows XP is bigger than the number representing the speed of light, but that only means you need more storage, more bandwidth, and/or more time to share it and use it. It still obeys the same natural laws. If you've got a way to restrict the use or sharing of the XP source code or any other information once it becomes known to the public, run (don't walk) to the RIAA's door, because they'll probably buy it for a million dollars - and then you can pick up another million from James Randi for proving the existence of magic.

Maybe if you forced everyone to use 300 bps modems and 10 MB hard drives, you could make it impractical for most people to share the XP source code widely... but unless your name is Kim Jong Il, you probably don't have the clout to do that, and even if you did, you might be surprised at what some people consider practical.

The BS of the DMCA

[eldavojohn]

Weeks after his first auction went live, Blizzard, Vivendi, and the ESA began sending repeated takedown notices under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), asking eBay to yank the auctions because of copyright and trademark infringement concerns.

At some point, everyone has to start to wonder where the DMCA's boundaries begin. I don't believe I've ever seen any single act or bill used in the court of law more than this. Basically, if you are low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of someone's face and take them to court. I'm not a lawyer but this piece of trash is written in the most convoluted legalese I've ever seen. Everyone and their dog are using the DMCA like a damaged crop in a witch hunt. I can't even get through a summary of it without getting lost--a sure fire sign that if you have the money, you can get those fancy lawyers that are essentially 'truthsmiths.'

I don't think everything about the DMCA is wrong. But I do think that it has no boundaries and can be openly interpreted. I believe this Act needs to be reformed before it is renewed and that it should be better defined. The internet has developed far past our wildest imaginations and no act passed in 1998 could account for all the legal caveats of it.

I believe my hatred for the DMCA falls just under my hatred for the Patriot Act.

And that's saying a lot.

In effect, if the video game industry's actions are upheld, "then selling a how-to book about Microsoft Word would infringe Microsoft's copyright, especially if the book contained one or more screenshots of Word's user interface," said Paul Levy...

Hey, with the DMCA, anything's possible! Well, what do you say Microsoft? O'Reilly's got deep pockets!

Re:The BS of the DMCA

[Zantetsuken]

Hey, with the DMCA, anything's possible! Well, what do you say Microsoft? O'Reilly's got deep pockets!

PLEASE dont give them ideas, if that puts Oreilly out of business or keeps them from putting out books on how to use basic word processing software, it'll mean more people wont be able to read those books, meaning there'll be more people asking insanely stupid questions on how to use M$ word ("For the 80th time, *this* is how you change the font size"), making less time for us to be posting on glorious /.

Re:The BS of the DMCA

[TommyBlack]

Basically, if you are low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of someone's face and take them to court.

Actually, it's usually the opposite. If your opponent is low on funds, wave the DMCA in front of them and force them to settle out of court. A lot of these cases are adjudicated fairly if they ever actually get to court, but that's not where the main problem is.

Re:The BS of the DMCA

[geminidomino]

O_O I've never seen an ORA book for "basic word processing software."

Best damn books a sysadmin's money can buy, though...

Re:The BS of the DMCA

[Alsee]

I don't think everything about the DMCA is wrong.

I agree.

As far as I've seen the sequential section numbering is right.

-

Re:The BS of the DMCA

[rajafarian]

I believe my hatred for the DMCA falls just under my hatred for the Patriot Act.

Just wondering... where is The Fed in your list?

Google.

Re:The BS of the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

Just wondering... where is The Fed in your list?

Above Tom Cruise but below Donald Rumsfield.

Well, the motion picture of War of the Worlds sucked pretty bad ... The Fed might even be below Cruise.

Protecting the Trademark

[Red Flayer]

Reagrdless of whether the actions taken by Blizzard against the guide creator were warranted based upon his actions, the simple fact of current Trademark law is:

If you don't actively protect it, you no longer own it.

Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.

Blizzard's action here isn't about keeping down the little guy; it's about protecting themselves from the bigger guys.

Doesn't make it just, or fair -- but their action is reasonable considering the nature of today's IP laws.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[cubicledrone]

Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.

Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark.

It is no different than if someone writes about McDonald's or Home Depot. Both are trademarks. As long as its clear who owns the trademark, there is nothing there.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Detritus]

Owning a trademark does not mean that you own the words in the trademark. I can write about Blizzard and World of Warcraft all day without infringing on their trademark. I don't need Blizzard's permission to write "World of Warcraft" in a document. Trademarks are designed to protect the customer, not to be pieces of IP that can be used to abuse others in court. If I write a book, "How to win at World of Warcraft(tm)", Blizzard has no legal basis to interfere.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Surt]

As another poster pointed out TM does not apply here due to TM acknowledgement, but perhaps more relevantly, TM does not apply to DM C A cases because the C stands for copyright, not trademark.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Red Flayer]

"Nope. If the writer attributes the trademark and makes it clear for his readers that he does not own the World of Warcraft trademark, there is no infringement, therefore there is no possibility that Blizzard will "lose" their trademark."

No, attribution is not all that's necessary. Usage still needs to fall under fair use, which is shaky at best for this guy.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[rossifer]

this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did)

But trademark law doesn't prevent you from using another company's trademarks for your profit. It primarily protects against uses that dilute the value of the trademark. So "MS Excel for Dummies" can be published without a license from Microsoft, even though it (1) clearly uses a trademarked phrase and (2) is published for profit. You can even sell your own spreadsheet program and market it as "Better than Excel!(tm)" as long as you don't call it something that could be confused with "Excel" or "MS Excel" or... Basically, all you have to do is acknowledge the trademark and not confuse potential customers with your use of the other company's trademark in your materials.

Which this guy apparently did. Blizzard is way out on a crazy limb here and in my non-expert estimation, will probably not prevail.

Regards,
Ross

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"If I write a book, "How to win at World of Warcraft(tm)", Blizzard has no legal basis to interfere." ... until you start using screenshots from the game, that's when you start getting into legal difficulties. I'm reminded of when Paramount went running around to Star Trek fan sites in the mid-to-late 90's demanding they take down screen caps from the various series.

"Blizzard has no legal basis to interfere."

I'm afraid Blizzard does actually have a legal basis here, mainly because screenshots are involved. Will it hold up? Is it right? Are they evil puppy eaters? I'm not trying to answer any of those questions. I'm just pointing out that this shit's happened before all in the name of trademarks.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[cubicledrone]

No, attribution is not all that's necessary. Usage still needs to fall under fair use, which is shaky at best for this guy.

Fair use applies to copyrights, not trademarks. The article seems to indicate most of the writing is original. A few illustrations are included, which, if attributed are fair uses, and the World of Warcraft trademark is included as well. As long as the trademark is attributed, there's no infringement here. There just isn't.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Danse]

I'm afraid Blizzard does actually have a legal basis here, mainly because screenshots are involved.

Screenshots are used in 95%+ of the how-to books on computing that are out there today. I don't see them getting hauled into court. I fail to see how this is different.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Screenshots are used in 95%+ of the how-to books on computing that are out there today. I fail to see how this is different."

GUIs of apps don't typically include trademarked images within them. Games, however, usually have nothing but trademarked characters in the screens. They own trademark, you gotta respect that trademark. It's hardly any different than trying to sell a T-Shirt with a picture of Donkey Kong on it.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Danse]

GUI apps have trademarked names and phrases all over the place. It says "Microsoft Word" right there on the titlebar near the Word document icon, and has "Microsoft Office Help" on the help sidebar. Pretty much every application book I've ever seen has the trademarked name of the app right there on the cover! Using a trademarked word or image is not a violation of the trademark if you are using it in a way that is not competing with the owner of the trademark's own product, and you are not deceiving customers as to who the trademark belongs to.

It's hardly any different than trying to sell a T-Shirt with a picture of Donkey Kong on it.

Actually, it's quite a bit different. Selling a t-shirt with a pic of Donkey Kong on it would compete directly with merchandise produced by Nintendo. Not only that, you are not using the image as a part of a larger work that you have produced on your own. You're counting on their trademark to sell the product on its own.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"You're counting on their trademark to sell the product on its own."

I see your point. I need to reconsider my view.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[irablum]

actually, you are right and he distorted your answer. You stated, "images" and he changed it to "names". there's a HUGE issue.

Even more important is intent. If I write a book about a guy who happens to live in a world and practice the craft of war, I'm not infringing on anyone's copyright. Reviews are protected as well, along with opinions. So I can tell everyone what I think of World of Warcraft. How to books, however are not. If I want to publish a how-to on model railroading, that's fine too, as long as I discuss all types, even if I show images of all types including Lionel trains. If I want to publish a how-to only about Lionel toy trains, I had better at least contact Lionel first.

Its not as if Blizzard are truly evil here. The guy is suing Blizzard for getting him yanked off of EBay. I'm sure that if he had gone to Blizzard in the first place and offered them $0.50 per book then we wouldn't be reading this. But, no, he rushes to sue. sue sue sue.

Ira

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Danse]

You stated, "images" and he changed it to "names". there's a HUGE issue.

What exactly is the issue? A trademark is a trademark.

How to books, however are not. If I want to publish a how-to on model railroading, that's fine too, as long as I discuss all types, even if I show images of all types including Lionel trains. If I want to publish a how-to only about Lionel toy trains, I had better at least contact Lionel first.

I'd like to see you give a source for that. You don't have to get anyone's permission to write a book about how to use their product. Just give a source that agrees with your position.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Anonymous Coward]

"If you don't actively protect it, you no longer own it."

Bullshit. Bill Watterson hasnt gone after all the guys making the stupid "calvin peeing on X" stickers. (although i really wish he would) Are you saying that Bill Watterson no longer owns the rights to the Calvin & Hobbes comic strips then?

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Jugalator]

Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the World of Warcraft trademark for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they are obligated by law to try to make him stop, or they lose their trademark.

No, no... This is closer to the truth:

Basically, if Blizzard became aware of this guy using the copyrighted content of World of Warcraft (screenshots) for personal profit (which he clearly did), then they have legal support to make him stop.

This is about his claims of "fair use" when he's clearly profiting, and that usually invalidates fair use rights. Trademarks? Books and guides use trademarks all the time, and that's thankfully not a problem as long as it's clear who owns it.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Pofy]

>Games, however, usually have nothing but trademarked characters in the
>screens.

Name a single trademark that appears on a typical screen when playing WoW. Just one.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Name a single trademark that appears on a typical screen when playing WoW. Just one."

You got me. I didn't phrase that all too well. I was thinking of games like Ninja Turtles where the main characters are trademarked. However, on Blizzard's site, they show a bunch of screen grabs without any markings indicating trademark. Weird.

Re:Protecting the Trademark

[Pofy]

The only possible trademarks I am aware of, although I have not searched any trademark register would be Blizzard and World Of Warcraft.

WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[Ender Ryan]

WTF is wrong with Blizzard? It seems they are always in court harassing their own user-base, which is a damn sight worse than the RIAA even, as the RIAA(well, supposedly) goes after actual pirates. Why not leave well enough alone?

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[schon]

WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

They're owned by a company run by overzealous lawyers.

The same company that sued Sony for inventing the VCR.

It's why I'll never buy a Blizzard (or Universal) product ever again (or, at least until they become more friendly to their customers.)

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

While I despise Blizzard, and no longer play WoW due to Queues and generally unreliable service (as compared to every other MMO on the market) I can't agree with this lawsuit.

The Jackass who's filing this suit is one of those slimeballs that scrapes freely available information (the kind you can get from any number of free websites that do not charge for it) and packages it up so he can sell it for a rediculous fee.

Why anyone would by crap like that when you can just look it up on the web I have no idea.

If he's successful at his lawsuit, I'm sure he'll try to sue Allakhazam's, and every other free game guide site out there for "interfering with his revenue stream".

And to be clear, Blizzard's not the one harassing in court here. It is the GAME GUIDE writer suing Blizzard.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[cpt kangarooski]

The Jackass who's filing this suit is one of those slimeballs that scrapes freely available information (the kind you can get from any number of free websites that do not charge for it) and packages it up so he can sell it for a rediculous fee.

Why anyone would by crap like that when you can just look it up on the web I have no idea.

Meh. I can download Shakespeare for free from all over the net. But I also bought a hardback collection of his work. Just because you wouldn't buy something is no reason to denigrate people who would, or people who create things for them.

And to be clear, Blizzard's not the one harassing in court here. It is the GAME GUIDE writer suing Blizzard.

Well apparently Blizzard kept issuing complaints to Ebay that resulted in the guy being unable to sell any of his guides there. So arguably they were harassing him out of court, and he's decided to go to court to protect himself.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[cubicledrone]

and packages it up so he can sell it for a rediculous fee.

How much are the books? Like $15 or something? $15 is ridiculous?

Now, if he is taking other published text verbatim and selling it, THAT is ACTUALLY copyright infringement. I doubt, of course, that most lawyers would recognize it, given they spend all their time trying to make non-infringing uses into infringements.

and every other free game guide site out there for "interfering with his revenue stream"

And he would be prevented from doing so by a legal concept known as "estoppel." The very arguments he is using to support the non-infringing nature of his book would be used as a defense by the game guides he claims are infringing. Estoppel prevents a party from being on both sides of an argument.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[slakdrgn]

Blizzard was hurrasing him outside of court though, and stating they would persue legal action. While you may agree with it or not, there is a point in all this. This still falls under fair use and DMCA has no place in this particular case. If he looses, this could set a huge precedence. Imagine O'Riley getting sued for their books, or better yet, Blizzard moves on to the free guides. Shutting down GameFaqs. They are making money (advertising) from others using their gameguides so they *must* be violating DMCA!

This guy is trying to make a buck, so be it. Mabey his guide is good, mabey it sucks but who cares? There is more at risk than just that.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[Robotech_Master]

So? You're paying for the work that was involved in putting together, collating, and organizing that "freely-available information" into a more usable form. If you don't want to buy it, then don't buy it, and spend the time collecting the information yourself instead.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[raoul666]

Well apparently Blizzard kept issuing complaints to Ebay that resulted in the guy being unable to sell any of his guides there. So arguably they were harassing him out of court, and he's decided to go to court to protect himself.

Why wouldn't his beef be with Ebay though? They're the ones that made the actual decision. I would think that Blizzard has a right to complain to Ebay, who can then say either "oh, you're right, we'll take it down" or "looks fine, it's staying". So...why sue Blizzard but not Ebay?

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[Tigwyk]

Forgive me for saying so, but the idea of "collecting a bunch of free information off the web and then selling it for a ridiculous fee" is a well known and PROFITABLE one. All those "Prima" brand strategy guides collect information you could find for yourself after some exploration on the web, but they sell for like $29.95 at EB/FutureShop/etc. I've personally used this technique for a paintball e-book. We spent many weeks collecting information from everywhere... Players, forums, google, etc, and put it all into an ebook with proper chapters, in an easy-to-read format. The money charged (we didn't charge an outrageous price, I think $25.97) is for the effort required to a) collect all that information for you, b) hire a ghostwriter to make it a decent read, c) promote the book (in this case via a website).

There is nothing wrong with this practice. If you don't want to buy the ebook, then feel free to go out and scour the web for the information in the book. The reason people makes "guides" like this is so the players can just get ONE guide and find all the stuff they'd want to know.

I doubt he'd sue Allakhazam, Thottbot, OGaming, or any other free game-guide sites. He'd have no case, of course. The reason he's suing Blizzard in the first place is because they're trying to force him out of the game. *ahem* He's not actively going after Blizzard, he's retaliating. Did you even RTFA? He's suing Blizzard because their trying to use the Trademark law to stop him from profiting off his guide (which is about their game). A quote from the article: "The companies went on to threaten copyright and trademark infringement action against Kopp."

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[cpt kangarooski]

What appears to have been happening is this:

He puts an item up for auction.

Blizzard issues a notice to Ebay to remove it. (This is similar to, but distinct from, a section 512 takedown notice -- something the plaintiff's attorneys may be confused about, from reading the complaint)

Ebay removes it automatically.

He contests it, which results in Ebay putting it back up after a period of time.

Blizzard issues another notice.

Ebay removes it automatically again.

Cycles of putting it up and having it taken down continue until his ebay account eventually gets suspended.

Even if he was mostly upset about Ebay having this policy that is highly favorable toward rightsholders, ultimately the central issue is whether or not the takedown notices are supported by a right held by Blizzard.

Ebay doesn't make a decision, you see. They don't want to be in that position. They just do what they're told with regard to takedowns, with the proviso that takedowns that are challenged and not responded to will be canceled, and the offending item put back up. (Which is similar to the 512 system)

Blizzard and this guy, Kopp, are the ones in the best position to resolve things. Ebay is stuck in the middle.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[raoul666]

Ah, thank you. I didn't know how Ebay handles this stuff, and given that they do it that way, his action is logical.

Re:WTF is wrong with Blizzard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you don't realize that Blizzard is "owned" by Vivindi. Blizzard is a "division" of Vivendi Universal Games. By that logic, the legal department is not acting worse than the RIAA, it *is* in fact part of the RIAA.

Just when do you think "Blizzard" started suing folks? Even if "Blizzard" employee's may in some way not be considered a standing memeber themselves of the RIAA, you can bet Vivendi's large legal department is their right hand in RIAA matters. It's unlikely that they are seperate entities.

I honestly doubt Blizzard employee's have any input or power in this matter. Given who owns them, your not going to hear them say anything that the master doesn't want them too.

http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name= News&file=article&sid=149

Not infringement

[cubicledrone]

attempts to trade off the substantial goodwill and recognition that Blizzard has built up in connection with its World of Warcraft product.

Yep. And it is perfectly within the boundaries of copyright law for someone to do so, provided they don't infringe on a trademark, create a derivative product or republish copyrighted material that is not a fair use.

From the article it sounds like this is a work of non-fiction, written to help people improve their knowledge of the game. It also sounds like "big company (that makes over $80M a MONTH in subscription revenue) uses copyright law as a club against entrepreneur." As long as all trademarks and copyrights are attributed, there's no infringement here. Sorry.

Re:Not infringement

[Wraithlord01]

As long as all trademarks and copyrights are attributed, there's no infringement here. Sorry. You're interpreting copyright law wrong. Attribution is irrelevant in this context. Here's the relevant section of the statuate. Sec. 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use: "Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies 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.". Is this work a criticism? Nope. Is it a commentary? Nope. Is it news reporting? Nope. Is it for teaching purposes? Nope (teaching purposes in this context is formal education systems, not self-help guides) Scholarship? Nope. Research? He undoubtably did reseach to make that guide (which is protected) but his usage within the distrubted guide is not research. I'd say that's pretty clearly not fair-use from the statuate as written. It's also illustrative to notice that it's the writer suing Blizzard, not vice-versa. All Blizzard did was ask Ebay to remove his guide , and Ebay did so without lawsuit. If the guy has complaints about that, he should direct his anger against Ebay and their policies.

Re:Not infringement

[NMerriam]

Ebay has no choice but to remove auctions if they are notified of a DMCA claim. The man's ONLY recourse is to either wait for Blizzard to sue him, shut down his own business, or file suit himself so that the courts will make a positive finding that his works do not violate the DMCA (which will allow eBay to sell them again). Amazingly he has chosen the third option, which of course Blizzard never expected.

His guide (from descriptions, I haven't read it) will most certainly sail through any Fair Use review. You dismissal of criticism, commentary, teaching etc suggest that you have no idea whatsoever what those mean or how they are applied. A guide such as his fits nearly half of the exemptions allowed for, as does every other reference/how-to manual that deals with a commercial product. The only difference between this guy and standard computer reference book publishers is that Blizzard assumed they could push him around and he couldn't or wouldn't defend his right.

Re:Not infringement

[cubicledrone]

You're interpreting copyright law wrong.

I think this is more about Blizzard's trademarks than their copyrights.

Attribution is irrelevant in this context.

Nonsense. It's a work of non-fiction. Attribution is not only relevant, it's required.

Is it for teaching purposes? Nope

Your list is quite flippant. The book is obviously both research and educational.

teaching purposes in this context is formal education systems, not self-help guides

Please point out the phrase "formal education system" in the law? Sounds like formal education system is a euphemism for "approved by the money people." And the little guy gets left out of the free market.

but his usage within the distrubted guide is not research.

So it's research until its published, then it becomes the property of the shareholders? Sorry. Neither copyright nor trademark law supports that. There's no infringement here.

All Blizzard did was ask Ebay to remove his guide

Based on an incorrect interpretation of trademark law. The entire issue should be dismissed. This is black letter fair use.

Just play Oblivion

[ShawnMcCool42]

I like WoW fine enough... but it was just a game to keep me interested while I waited for a single player RPG. You know... something with real content and playability.. Something designed around giving the player abilities rather than handicapping them.

I bought Oblivion and it was well worth it. Throw away those MMOs and play something with atmosphere.

Re:Just play Oblivion

[CoderBob]

Unless Oblivion is to Morrowind what a modern computer is to a TRS-80, I'll stick with WoW, thanks. I play games for gameplay and atmosphere, not just atmosphere, and Morrowind was the biggest waste of space I ever installed. It made FF8 look good in comparison.

Re:Just play Oblivion

[smbarbour]

Does this "atmosphere" in Oblivion consist of characters being played by other people around the world that you can interact with? No? Well then I guess I'll be sticking to MMOs (which I don't consider anti-social behavior even though my wife does. Just because I've never met the people I'm talking to doesn't mean that I'm not being social...)

That said, most MMOs could stand to use more story and less pure "grinding". (This is actually available in some MMOs such as Anarchy Online. You can get randomly-generated quests based on what type you are looking for.)

Also, I've only played a few MMOs, and of those, all were at no cost to play (i.e. Free client, no fees). So no WoW, GW, or Evercrack for me.

Re:Just play Oblivion

[NMerriam]

Does this "atmosphere" in Oblivion consist of characters being played by other people around the world that you can interact with?

Unfortunately, the characters in Oblivion use English properly, spell their words correctly, speak in complete sentences and never /yell about a leet sword they found or what a faggot that troll over there is.

I know, it ruins the atmosphere but somehow I manage to enjoy it :P

Re:Just play Oblivion

[smbarbour]

Hell, in the MMOs that I play, the NPCs don't even use English properly (poorly translated from Korean). I actually find it enjoyable that not every character in the game gets along. I also like that unlike a single-player RPG, I'm one of many who are actually doing something. I might actually play another single-player RPG if things happened at random (such as an NPC bragging about a great find he got while hunting and then looking to sell it to the highest bidder.)

But I guess that's just me. I'm not the kind of person who likes to be entertained by a storyline that rarely deviates each time you play. (Of course, with MMOs that's generally at the expense of any storyline at all) I prefer gameplay and community over the pure "order" or at least well-orchestrated "chaos" that the developers put into a game.

Oh, and when it comes to spelling things properly and using complete sentences:

1) There is supposed to be a suspension of disbelief where what you are reading on the screen, your character is actually hearing.
2) If you can't understand what another player is saying, treat it as someone speaking a foreign language. I know you are a hero, but you're not supposed to be omnipotent (usually).
3) I'm playing the game for fun, not education. If I wanted education, I'd be playing Reader Rabbit.

Re:Just play Oblivion

[Anonymous Coward]

MMMMOOOPRRGGG lover? I bet you play an elf girlie. You're teh faggot!!!11!!!!1!

Re:Just play Oblivion

[ShawnMcCool42]

Well, really.. With quest management, a fun storyline, and instant-travel options Oblivion fixes a lot of problems with Morrowind.

Morrowind's largest downfall is that the freedom overwhelmed many players and made them forget that all they had to do was follow the storyline. Instead people got used to breaking and entering and murder, then complained that there wasn't enough "form".

With Oblivion it's easy to keep track of what you're supposed to do to continue the storyline. Alternately, you can do whatever you want.

I find the gameplay significantly better. I'm always earning new abilities and enhancing old ones, and a huge difference between WoW and Oblivion is that with WoW i felt incredibly restricted as to what I could do. There were so many hard barriers that I was unable to pass until I'm the right level. There's little room for cunning or alternate solutions to problems. You're too low level, you can't get the quest (ALWAYS).

Oblivion on the other hand allows me to sneak through dungeons with creatures much more powerful than me while I loot stuff that I wouldn't be able to get if it was so restricted based on level. Not only that, each of many abilities are constantly evolving as you play so your character really grows in unique ways, unlike WoW where respeccing and equipment is the limit of individuality.

All in all I'm sick and tired of MMOs.. They focus too much on keeping the player down. I feel totally oppressed in that environment. I like games that let me play how I want. The freedom could overwhelm some, but the quest manager should really help them overcome the problem. Just make a quest your active quest and voila... Red arrow on your compass. Anyone should be able to handle that. Add to all of that superier graphics and sound, actual Physics, and far superior AI and I'm a happy camper.

Sure you can't chat with people without alt+tabbing, and it'd be nice to share my gameworld with a close friend or two... but honestly... I'm tired of being called a fag anyway.

Re:Just play Oblivion

[ShawnMcCool42]

Yea, you like playing with dolls with friends. whoop de doo

Re:Just play Oblivion

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad we don't all have computers that are capable of running it. I'm not going to spend 200 dollars on a new video card!

Re:Just play Oblivion

[PaganRitual]

Oblivion on the other hand allows me to sneak through dungeons with creatures much more powerful than me while I loot stuff that I wouldn't be able to get if it was so restricted based on level.

Hate to rain on your parade, fag, but Oblivion levels it's dungeons, quests, loot and quest rewards based on your current level. So no, you aren't sneaking past creatures much more powerful than yourself, they are based on your current level. And that loot? Yeah, thats tailor made for your level too. Notice how nothing has a strength, agility, or level requirement before equipping?

Although I must agree otherwise, since I got Oblivion I've hardly played WoW. Although I wish Oblivion had an 'expert' mode or something, where I'm not informed every time I pick up a bear tooth that part of a quest ("I FUCKING KNOW THIS IS A BEAR TOOTH FOR THAT GUY THIS IS WHY IM KILLING BEARS") and the red compass mark is just an insult. And why have a huge game world if you're only going instant teleport around the place? If you're friends with the Mages guild, sure, but otherwise it's just cheap. Oh wait, I forgot, this time it was developed with consoles in mind from the beginning, not just as a later port. Funny how that suddenly introduces as many things as possible that makes it ADD-friendly *cough*Fable*cough*

Re:Just play Oblivion

[Anonymous Coward]

NeverWinter Nights 2 will be coming out soon. It is my preference for the following reasons:

No subscription fees
Multiplayer in a tailored environment.*
Customisation.
Interaction with a comfortable number of other players**

*This includes not only the geography, but the fact that the team running any given server may choose to account for player actions to in-game events and steer the "plot" acordingly

**Around 64 players max per server, of which multiple servers can be linked. Sure, it isn't 2500, but who in an MMO interacts (in any meaningful way) with that many people anyway?

Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[ecorona]

Blizzard has been making some moves that make it look like one of those big ugly soul-less corporations that we all hate so much. I will be much more hesitant to buy any of their products. A company doesn't have to be open source for me to support it but Blizzard has become arrogant and unapologetic when it comes to its customers and the little poeple in general.

Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, lets all be outraged that any company would dare stand up for its IP rights. How dare they sue some poor 24 year old trying to exploit thier product for financial gain!

.
.
.
Oh wait, they didn't. HE sued THEM. Guess what, this guy brought it on himself and is now trying to build sympathy for his unsubstantiated case.

Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[ShyGuy91284]

True, but they'll always have a high spot in my book for being one of the few companies that strongly supports Macs....

Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[geminidomino]

I will be much more hesitant to buy any of their product

Don't worry about it. As long as WoW is going strong, they'll apparently never release another product anyway.

Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[Danse]

Yes, lets all be outraged that any company would dare stand up for its IP rights. How dare they sue some poor 24 year old trying to exploit thier product for financial gain!

.
.
.
Oh wait, they didn't. HE sued THEM. Guess what, this guy brought it on himself and is now trying to build sympathy for his unsubstantiated case.

You're trolling most likely, but lest someone not rtfa and spot this, there should be a rebuttal. He is only suing because Blizzard repeatedly forced Ebay to remove his listings for the guide. He's doing the same thing that countless authors do all the time. They write a how-to guide on some piece of software, complete with explanations and screenshots. He's not ripping off their work. He's creating something that is helpful to a lot of people, and making fair use of a very limited number of images from the game to do so. I don't see the other authors being harrassed, so I don't see why Blizzard should get away with harrassing this guy either.

Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[Tigwyk]

It's true. After reading about many people receiving permanent account bans without warning, even though their ToS states you get a warning first... it's sorta made me regret getting addicted to the damn game. I play WoW a lot right now, and even though I hate Blizzard for their "My way or the highway" ToS/EULA, I can't get away from it if I want to enjoy the game.

I'm still hoping that one day... a law is passed that makes it difficult for businesses to create EULA's that give all the power to the business and NO PROTECTION to the consumer. For instance, "supposedly" if I get in trouble with Blizzard, I can email them and state my issues, etc etc... but as far as I've seen (my own attempts, plus reading about other experiences), Blizzard doesn't give a rat's ass about me and won't reply. I guess once they hit that $80M/mo mark, they stopped caring if they lose a few customers here and there.

They are officially on my "Faceless Corporation" list. They're #2, right below the Fox Network. ;)

(MS has a face, so that gives me something to vent my anger at... Mr. Gates)

Re:Blizzard Is Looking Worse & Worse

[flimflammer]

See I dont get this. I've actually had a situation where my account was compromised and I was banned. Instead of taking it like a pussy, I got in contact with Blizzard, stated my case, pointed out the evidence, challenged their evidence, and after brief period of time, I was unbanned and my account was exactly as it was left. I even got an apology from Blizzard, stating my determination was key to keeping things on the right track.

So either you never tried hard enough to show your case in whatever they thougth you did wrong, or you plain just didn't try at all.

I've had a single bad experiance with Blizzard, and that was on a weekend when my friend had his acount stolen, and they told me they couldn't do a thing until Monday. That was the biggest letdown I ever got from them, but asside from that, I've had no real problem with them.

I posted AC earlier to mention this because I forgot to log in, but this Kopp guy isn't as great as people make him out to be. He actually did the same thing to others as Blizzard is doing to him. He reported competing guides on ebay for copywright infringements, and when someone would ever attempt to dispute his claims, he never be available. This guy is scum, attempting to be some figure. He's aiming for publicity.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Prima Game Guides?

[EggMan2000]

I'm guessing that Blizzard has some kind of exclusive deal for guides through a publisher and is finding that competing guides violate their copyright? Could that be the case? It still doesn't make much sense to me though. I mean look at MS Office, there are dozens of books that teach users to use Office. Did each of these book publishers have to get permission from MS to produce it?

Re:Prima Game Guides?

[Marc_Hawke]

I'm guessing you're right.

Blizzard signed an exclusivity deal with Prima. "You are the only ones who get to write game guides." Part of the deal with probably states that Blizzard will be responsible for enforcing that exclusivity.

It seems like a stupid contract. I'm sure it happens in all industries, but video games see it all the time. Mostly with demo's and these 'Premium File Services' like Gamespot and Gamespy. For some worhtless reason, (payola? higher review scores?), or legitimate reason (cheaper advertizing rates) publishers/developers will allow for 'exclusive distribution' of a game demo.

There must be some huge financial incentive, because it results in a large marketting and PR loss for the game. The people would rather it be available from the greatest number of sources possible.

Anyway...this is the same thing. Blizzard signed stupid (in the eyes of the public) that only Prima (example) would be able to publish a game guide....now they are stuck with being the 'bad guy' enforcing it.

Re:Prima Game Guides?

[happyemoticon]

I'd guess the actual deal is more like, "You're the ones who get to sell the game guides." Thottbot, Goblin's Workshop, and WoWWiki are all free, and still online. And they're GOOD. I suspect that Blizzard doesn't like these websites, but they're still operational, though they happen to contain a ton of copyrighted text. There's just something about charging money for services such as these that gets a lawyer's bloodlust up.

Another possibility is that they just have a bunch of noob lawyers, paralegals and legal secretaries sitting around scouring EBay for anything WoW related, gold or guides or what have you. If they find something, they mechanically send a take-down notice. They probably send out hundreds of these a day.

Re:Prima Game Guides?

[NMerriam]

They do have an exclusive deal with Prima, but what Blizzard and Prima agree to has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of other parties to write about their game.

The sticking point for unauthorized guides is usually that the author has no access to the software or development team before it is released to the general public. Large publishers want to have a book on the shelves the day the software comes out, not 12 months later.

Re:Prima Game Guides?

[ocbwilg]

I'm guessing that Blizzard has some kind of exclusive deal for guides through a publisher and is finding that competing guides violate their copyright? Could that be the case? It still doesn't make much sense to me though.

Blizzard may be able to offer someone the exclusive rights to make an officially sanctioned game guide, but they can't prevent someone from making an unofficial guide. Writing a game guide is simply writing about the game. It is part analysis, part critique. Typically in an official guide they will have access to the game before it is released, and be legally allowed to use official trademarks, logos, etc. The unofficial guide usually comes after the fact and doesn't include official logos, etc.

I personally hope this guys wins it and smacks Blizzard around quite a bit. I probably would have done the same thing in his shoes, and Blizzard has plenty of cash if they have to pay up. Fighting Blizzard's DMCA takedown harrassment in court could end up being far more profitable than selling the game guides to begin with. And if he wins, he can start selling them as "the unofficial game guide filled with WoW secrets that Blizzard doesn't want you to see", or "the WoW secrets that Blizzard went to court to keep secret can now be yours for $xx.xx!"

Re:Prima Game Guides?

[incabulos]

Unless the gameguide author is a signatory to Blizzards exclusive deals, then they have no authority over him. And if he did sign some stuff, then he could only be in violation of that contract, a tort - not copyright or trademarks which are an entirely different kettle of fish.

It looks like all Blizzards claims made to eBay regarding the gameguides are false. As others have explained, there is no given example of any copyright violation or trademark violation that has taken place. Not one single case.

Making false claims to eBay is one thing - using the DMCA to do so makes things much worse for Blizzard, as the DMCA explicitly authorises perjury charges to be bought against the claimant if said claims are demonstrably false.

So Blizzard arent just in the wrong, they are now open to criminal prosecution. Given a long and well documented history of criminal wrongdoing by Blizzard ( vis a vis the Freecraft and bnetd debacles ), they are long overdue for one hell of a beating.

Heh. Next thing you know...

[Richard Steiner]

...Blizzard is gonna start suing its own customers for displaying copies of protected game images on their PC monitors...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Has anyone else noticed...

[Jeian]

Has anyone else noticed recently that a lot of WoW forum drama keeps ending up on Slashdot within a day or so?

Re:Has anyone else noticed...

[Anonymous Coward]

mmm.. Probably because it keeps getting buried on Digg for being lame..

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Authors have done this before -- successfully

[Hannah E. Davis]

I've heard of this kind of thing happening before, actually -- a while back, Anne McCaffrey was squelching fan artists left and right, angry that people should even try to make money off illustrating scenes from her novels. The vast majority of authors (and other IP owners) habitually turn a blind eye to this type of copyright infringement, mainly because it benefits them, but the point is that they can put a stop to it if they want, and some of them have in the past.

Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, what a bitch.

Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know, the first hit for her name in Google gives a pr0n site - www.annemccaffrey.org

I guess that's her. Here, I'll kindly help link her along. Anne McCaffrey

Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully

[MMaestro]

When it comes to printed media (such as books), generally 'fanmade' stuff is frowned upon generally because its sold for profit (to cover the cost of printing of course). In addition, because content is released so slowly 'fanmade' works can be too easily mistaken or accepted as "official" works. (the sheer amount of Star Wars fanmade works are impossible to accurately keep track of, especially since between '83 to '99 there were no 'new' Star Wars movies).

As for Anne McCaffrey, if you read any of her books, its not surprising to see that she squelched fan artists. A huge amount of stuff in the books rely heavily on the reader's imaginations.

Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully

[nagora]

a while back, Anne McCaffrey was squelching fan artists left and right, angry that people should even try to make money off illustrating scenes from her novels.

If they're making money off it I don't think I would count it as "fan" work anymore.

The vast majority of authors (and other IP owners) habitually turn a blind eye to this type of copyright infringement,

Illustrating scenes from a book is not by any stretch of the imagination copyright infringement. What are you copying? An image in your own head? How does AMcC own that exactly?

mainly because it benefits them, but the point is that they can put a stop to it if they want, and some of them have in the past

They can with legal threats and bluff, but it isn't legal and it isn't moral. I suspect, having met Anne several times outside of conventions that she may have been just sick of the appalling lack of skill and taste, not to mention strong pornographic tendancies, of some of these artists. I don't know. Perhap's she's just gone nuts. Either way, I think it's a bad sign to be trying to claim ownership of the insides of people's heads.

TWW

Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully

[Jordanis]

Ah yes, I recall this. My favorite one was where an artist (a skilled, clean artist, to refer to one of the other replies to this) had two websites. One where she posted personal art and presumably other things one might post on a personal site, one where she sold her skills for money. Comissions, prints, and suchlike.

The personal site had Pern fanart, the professional did not. But there was a link on the pro site to the personal site, and vice-versa. Considering the specific decision not to put the Pern fanart on the business site as advertisment of skill, I doubt the link was particularly prominent.

She got sued by our dear McCaffery, who demanded that she not only cease using the fanart as advertisment for her business, ie take it off the website, but demanded that the /original physical works/ be destroyed.

Gotta love that psychobitch.

Re:Authors have done this before -- successfully

[Perky_Goth]

and i was considering buying her books!
well, to bad for her.

You hit a nail on it's head...

[Khyber]

Lemme repost somethign you quoted...

In effect, if the video game industry's actions are upheld, "then selling a how-to book about Microsoft Word would infringe Microsoft's copyright, especially if the book contained one or more screenshots of Word's user interface," said Paul Levy...

I guess these idiots have never heard of Windows For Dummies, Word for Dummies, Excel for Dummies, etc.? Just how are those 'guides' infringing upon copyright, hrm?

MOD PARENT DOWN -- thanks

[Red Flayer]

Blech, I was totally incorrect and wish I'd had the seventh cup of coffee before posting that.

Thanks to everyone who pointed it out!
J

blizzards on my bad biz list already

[Anonymous Coward]

just one of a number of companies that will never, ever receive any coinage from me

unprofessional as it is, clearly blizzard executives still feel the need for greed

And it goes on...

[LordVader717]

... 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;

Is a guide for a game trying to be a game? I think not. It is a book about using a product that you have already paid for.


2. the nature of the copyrighted work;

What the guide is using are basically the mechanics in the game, known and discovered by many gamers.


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

Apart from a few screenshots in the guide, he is using his own writing.


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

Will the guide stop people from buying the game? No! In fact, it is very unlikely that anybody who doesn't own the game would even look at such a book. Of course, it might compete with their official guide, but that is a seperate issue, because he doesn't use material from that guide, but from the original game.

Ebay's policy is like that because they can't research every situation of potential copyright infringement, so they close down auctions when they get complaints from what they believe to be respectable sources (such as the IP holder Blizzard).

Blizzard hase done wrong by trying to make them believe there was copyright infringement where there was none.

I have been able go to my local bookstore and buy guides to games for years. I'm sure I can go find some kind of guide for WoW if I wanted to. What gets me about this case is why Blizzard all of a sudden goes after the little guy selling a couple of hundred books on Ebay when this kind of thing has been common practice for years.
It's basically the same things magazines do when giving you tips for using computer programs, discuss strategies for "Dungeons and Dragons", or (*gasp*) write guides for computer games.

Re:And it goes on...

[Samari711]

you're wrong on several counts:

1)The use in quesiton is the use of the person producing the work, not the consumer of the work. the guy writing the guy is doing so to make money, so yes it is comercial.

2&3)The specifics of how the game works and how a character interacts with the world can be considered part of the copyrighted work. The settings, the unique characters, the mechanics are all creative expressions in addition to artwork. I'm not sure about the details here but in it's not quite as clear cut as you make it seem. Intuitively it seems like it would be very hard to make a game guide that doesn't rely heavily on at least some parts of the copyrighted work.

4)Blizzard publishes their own game guide based on their copyrighted game. Therefore this game guide directly competes with a Blizzard products and reduces the market. Also if the guide were especially bad it may as a side effect lower the percieved value of the actual game.

You may not like copyright laws, but Blizzard does have a very strong case here, especially if you add the trademark issues into the mix.

Re:And it goes on...

[Pofy]

>1)The use in quesiton is the use of the person producing the work, not the
>consumer of the work. the guy writing the guy is doing so to make money, so
>yes it is comercial.

And of course, we first has to determine WHAT infringing use we are looking. That is step one, to identify a copyright infringement, if there is no infringement, there is no issue or point in dealing with fair use. The fair use test is not to determine if some action is infirngement, it is to determine the opposite, if an infringing action is NOT so. SO what infringement are we looking at?

>2&3)The specifics of how the game works and how a character interacts with
>the world can be considered part of the copyrighted work.

So you claim that he has copied the work or part of a work, and in this case, what he copied was game rules and interaction mechanisms, right? Now, please go and find how copyright law gives protection for such things and you will come up that they are NOT something you get copyright on. In addition, he has not copied them, that would be understandable if he had written his own game or character interaction interface or something. What he do is describe some of those, in his own word (no copying there thus) so even if you WOULD get copyright on any of them, there is still no clear infringement.

As a side "thread", would you then say that Blizzard's implementation of how to interact with the game is also unique and can't be said to have copied anything from other games? I would say that the interaction for example is very similar between games and they borrow from each other freely.

>The settings, the unique characters, the mechanics are all creative
>expressions in addition to artwork.

But has he copied any of those? Or has he simply explained how a player should play the game?

>4)Blizzard publishes their own game guide based on their copyrighted game.
>Therefore this game guide directly competes with a Blizzard products and
>reduces the market.

But you must look at the infringnement, what is it? As stated above, if there is none, then this is irellevant. Just because you make a product that in itself compete with someone else does not create an infringement.

Re:And it goes on...

[LordVader717]

While most of what I would have to say are explained in the parallel post, I would like to make two more things clear:

1) It hasn't got anything to do with the consumer. The thing is, to have copied something, you have to have created something that is worthy of the descrption "copied". A guide is something fundamentally different from a game.

A simple anology;
If a kid draws a picture in school, and another draws something similar, he could say "you copied me". If however, the other kid writes about what his friend drew today, that can't be considered "copied".

4) The guide doesn't refer to Blizzard's official game guide, but to the actual game. He has written his own guide because of the game, not because Blizzard makes a guide aswell.
The two products are seperate. It's not a question whether it competes with Blizzard products, but whether it competes with the actual used material (the game), and it doesn't.

Also if the guide were especially bad it may as a side effect lower the percieved value of the actual game.

Now that's one thing I just don't get.

You may not like copyright laws, but Blizzard does have a very strong case here, especially if you add the trademark issues into the mix.

I do like copyright laws because they allow artists to make a living off their work, and thereby gives me better choice and variety.
What I don't like are IP-holders like Blizzard who try to maintain absolute control over anything that is said or spoken about their IP, even in blatant cases of fair use.

BTW it isn't Blizzard bringing the case forward here. But I think they know very well themselves how weak they stand. As I said before, unofficial guides are very common, and there is a whole industry around the likes of "Excel for dummies"

What's this got to do with trademark? He isn't selling it as "Official Blizzard/Warcraft guide", and cleary states that in his diclaimer.

Way off base, this is Copyright

[BobPaul]

This isn't a trademark issue, though. The DMCA protects copyright. Blizzard can't use the DMCA to protect their Trademarks, so from that simple fact we shouldn't even be discussing trademark.

Regardless, this clearly falls under Nominative Use of Blizzard's trademark. Since nobody is selling a competing product using "Warcraft" in it's title, but is instead selling a product that speaks about one of Blizzard's products by name, this is absolutely ok. Nominative Use is very clearly defined for trademarks, and this is why Blizzard has tried to hit them undercopyright, because they have no case under trademark but the DMCA can be used in a "Shoot first and ask questions later" manner.

Re:Way off base, this is Copyright

[Breakfast Pants]

Blizzard gets people for selling their ingame accounts using the DMCA as well. That isn't copyright either, but they have found a way to make it so.

Re:Way off base, this is Copyright

[BobPaul]

Most likely if you sued, they would prove it isn't copyright infringement, but the DMCA is written in such a way that you are basically guilty once accused until proven innocent and nobody has the money to spend attempting a lawsuit for something like ingame accounts.

Blizzard is right

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference between all these other publishers and this one guy is that all these publishers do one thing first: that is ask Blizzard's permission. He is publicly using Blizzard's works for profit, and he's in the right to do so as long as he's asked. The disclaimer that he published doesn't mean anything without at the very least asking for permission.

I wonder what would have happened if the guy just followed accepted procedure and simply asked to publish his works? Most of the time, as stated, this stuff benefits the brand that's being advertised, so the company will just say yes. But without asking, getting the profits too benefits blizzard even more. It's people with money looking for more money, which, in our capitalist fair to the consumer economy, is what we all do. This guy just made it easy.

Not to defend blizzard here, but look at every other brand, you can't take them and start selling them as your own under any copyright law without the "used with permission" clause.

Re:Blizzard is right

[Danse]

The difference between all these other publishers and this one guy is that all these publishers do one thing first: that is ask Blizzard's permission.

It may be true that others asked for permission (actually just one AFAIK, which is Prima, who has the rights to publish the "Official Guide"), but it's certainly not required. I don't have to get permission to write a book on how to use MS Excel, and have it published. That's not the point of copyright law. I can write the book, include screenshots and descriptions of how to use the interface, etc. It's fair use. It's not stealing anything from MS. It's simply describing how to use something effectively. He's doing the same with the WoW guide.

Not to defend blizzard here, but look at every other brand, you can't take them and start selling them as your own under any copyright law without the "used with permission" clause.

He's not selling anything that belongs to Blizzard. From what I've seen, he has properly attributed the material and trademarks that are used. There is no reasonable chance of anyone mistaking who owns the marks, and he's not trying to confuse anyone. He even notes on the first page that the guide is unauthorized.

Re:Blizzard is right

[hobbesx]

I would think that more often than not, those requests are formatted in the 'For' section of the check.

Re:Blizzard is right

[smashin234]

He may put a disclaimer in somewhere, but the trademark issue circles around whether or not a normal person would confuse this product with a guidebook that was written by blizzard. This is known as liklihood of confusion.

Or to rephrase: you have a right to create a guidebook, but you do not have the right to abuse someone else's good name in order to sell more copies. For instance, you can't confuse people into thinking your book was written by blizzard or is sanctioned by blizzard. It doesn't matter that you put a disclaimer anywhere...It won't save you from this.

Copyright issues are cut and dry and I doubt that will pan out at all in a lawsuit.

Re:Blizzard is right

[Danse]

Well they aren't claiming trademark infringement in this case, so it's my guess that they don't feel they have a trademark case against him. They're claiming copyright infringement, but I doubt that will hold up in court. They tried to intimidate him and it seems to have backfired.

yeah, i agree

[argStyopa]

I guess I have to side with Blizz on this one.

Sounds like the guy basically just published and is trying to sell the data that's available almost everywhere on thottbot.com or wow.allakhazam.com (for example), which Blizz doesn't seem to object to.

So what's their beef? Probably that he's trying to make a buck off THEIR IP. I agree with them. If he just put it up for download as a free pdf, I bet that they wouldn't have any beef with it.

Re:yeah, i agree

[cubicledrone]

Probably that he's trying to make a buck off THEIR IP.

Like movie reviewers?

Copyright law was not written to prevent people from "making a buck." It's to prevent people from taking a buck away from the copyright holder. This book sounds like it's perfectly within the boundaries of fair use.

Re:yeah, i agree

[raoul666]

Copyright law was not written to prevent people from "making a buck." It's to prevent people from taking a buck away from the copyright holder. This book sounds like it's perfectly within the boundaries of fair use.

Ah, but a good game guide could speed up a player's progress in WoW, which means fewer months of subscription fees for Blizzard. Therefore, he is taking money away from them.

No, I'm not serious.

Yes, Blizzard might be thinking this very thing.

Re:yeah, i agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Unlike reviews which never results in lost sales, or what?

Re:yeah, i agree

[Ash-Fox]

I've seen reviews that claim things to be utter crap. I don't know if that puts a dent in sales, but I imagine it would.

Re:yeah, i agree

[argStyopa]

No, that's not a fair analogy.

Movie reviewers aren't selling the plot spoilers to a movie they've seen. They are selling their OPINION of the movie that they've seen. Whether it's of value to you is an entirely subjective thing.

If this guy was selling HIS REVIEW of WoW, that would be entirely different. "The Ultimate World of Warcraft Leveling & Gold Guide" is clearly NOT a review; neither is it 'educational' in the typical sense.

The key question is - if you build a complex piece of machinery, and write an instruction manual, you clearly hold the copyright to what you wrote. But could someone else (essentially) reverse-engineer your machine, or simply use it a lot, and write their OWN instruction manual?

IANAL, but I think that seems like it crosses the line of infringement. You could (fair use) write a lengthy and detailed article with pictures and diagrams saying "this is one of the features of this machine, and why I don't/do like it so much", but 'user guides' are, I believe, essentially competing with the owners own manuals.

However, I'll throw this spin on it too: by my OWN preferences, I'd say that the moment someone licenses an outside firm to produce 'user guides' one has ceased to defend one's copyright effectively, and has given it over to the free market. So in this PARTICULAR case, if that was the standard, then this would be fine since Blizz licensed at least one other company to write guides.

But that's just me.

Re:yeah, i agree

[cubicledrone]

But could someone else (essentially) reverse-engineer your machine, or simply use it a lot, and write their OWN instruction manual?

"Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of the press."

Sounds simple enough to me.

but I think that seems like it crosses the line of infringement.

Infringement is interfering with the existing market for a published work. Taking someone ELSE's instruction manual and reprinting it commercially is infringement.

but 'user guides' are, I believe, essentially competing with the owners own manuals.

Competition is not infringement.

Good Riddence

[cbuskirk]

This isn't about fair use. This is about protecting the WoW brand. Hundreds of these "guides" litter EBay. They are nothing more than get rich quick schemes promising secret exploits and easy gold. Frankly the people dumb enough to buy these are the same people whose opinion of Blizzard unfairly damaged when the realize they were conned. If this guy were above board, he could have set up a website to promote and sell a legitimate e-book to paying customers. This would have made him accountable to customers and given him defense against Blizzards actions. He is just another scam artist who got caught and now he thinks he can blackmail a settlement out of Blizzard with the threat of negative publicity.

Re:Good Riddence

[mmalove]

Quoth the article - he did set up a website from which he does sell his guide.

I'm not promoting copyright infringement or anything here, but unless this guide included ways to exploit the game (that is, take advantage of bugs and such unfairly), Blizzard should have better things to do. They are always about how they need more time to set up servers, that they don't have the resources to run live events, and yet obviously they have people on their payroll doing nothing more than running around squashing a guy trying to make a buck or two. Glad to see where that 15/month from all the players is going to.

Re:Good Riddence

[sqlrob]

And if it covers taking advantage of bugs, then they have more important things to do, like fixing the bugs.

So either way, they should just leave him alone.

Re:Good Riddence

[Dr. Donuts]

RTFA. He has his own website. Kind of shoots the premise of your argument full of holes.

Given that Blizzard has basically bullied Ebay into disallowing the sale of these guides using DMCA notices, I don't think Blizzard has much moral high ground here, let alone legal.

Try and take a marketing course..

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademarks are discussed indepth even in introductory Marketing course. If they do not protect their trademarks, they can and will lose them. Don't try and say this is wrong, it isn't. Companies spend millions protecting them, as a trademark can be worth millions itself. Just think of the Nike balance sheet and where the "swoosh" would rank as an intangible asset.

Re:Try and take a marketing course..

[Anonymous Coward]

That only applies in cases of inappropriate attribution or very similar marks, not in cases of clear trademark attribution. Try taking a law class.

Stolen Game Guides.

[JavaLord]

FYI, most of these game guides are created by taking information (even if it's outdated) from strategy sites like MultiplayerStrategies.com. I wrote a few guides for them (No, I wasn't paid, but they have paid writers on the staff) and those guides turned up in different places for free. (whatever).

Another one of their writers (mongoose) who is very popular for having leveled every class to 60, has had many of his guides stolen and resold on ebay, and on those annoying 1 page ad websites. The worst part is they resell guides that are months old, with tips that haven't worked for many patches (such as the zoning into and out of instances near maintanence to dupe items).

I was actually thinking about writing a new guide and selling it on ebay. Nice to see blizz is picking on the little guys again. tsk tsk.

Re:The BS of the DMCA, agreed

[Some_Llama]

This is the inherent flaw in Civil disputes (i don't mean small claims court).

Until we can figure out a way to hold persons or companies responsible for their actions in civil court regardless of the size of a plaintiffs bankroll AND protect against frivolous or "harrassment" types of lawsuits, civil law will always favor those with more money, quite the opposite of the "scales of justice" the ideal of law is based on...

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This isn't about the content, it's about the money

[thepacketmaster]

Obviously Blizzard isn't that concerned about what is in the book, because there are literally hundreds of websites that describe various strategies to become successful in WoW, from running instances to selling stuff successfully. So Blizzard's real concern must be that he is making money and they aren't getting a cut. If this is so, why doesn't Warcraft more actively go after all the farmers selling gold for real money. While they may say they are actively pursuing these farmers, I can go to thottbot and numerous other WoW related websites and find adds for gold farmers everywhere. It makes you wonder if maybe the gold farmers are giving Blizzard a cut?

There is a clause in copyright for this

[PCM2]

Blizzard is not an artist, it is a co-op of artists. The idea that a co-op can have more rights than an individual is ridiculous -- individuals have rights, co-ops are just groups of individuals trying to market a huge variety of products together.

I doubt sincerely that Blizzard is a cooperative in any sense of the word. It is a corporation, with management and a board of directors like any other. It's true that there are multiple creators who work for this single entity, but that doesn't make it a co-op. There is actually a clause in copyright law designed for this specific circumstance, called work made for hire.

So 3rd party software texts infringe copyright?

[Retired Replicant]

So does this mean that if I write a tutorial textbook on how to create awesome chart macros in Excel, I would be infringing on Microsofts copyright on MS Excel? Sounds like BS to me, and shortsighted BS at that.

Re:Heh. Next thing you know...

[Richard Steiner]

Once again the moderators show no sense of humor... Grow up...

Bad Prima Guides

[mabu]

As far as I'm concerned, anything that offers an alternative to the mostly-useless Prima "official" game guides is an improvement. I've always thought the whole Prima game guide deal was a big scam to get more money from consumers for basic information that can be easily found elsewhere and doesn't contain any real insight, tricks or valuable tips.

Kopp guy is shady

[Anonymous Coward]

Not many know but this guy is very shady. He did to others exactly what Blizzard did to him with competing guides. Whenever the others would dispute his claims, he would never be available.

I'm really not rooting for this guy.

License to print money. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

This looks like a case of "look that guy's making money, lets sue his ass!"

Re:License to print money. . .

[deep44]

Actually, it's a case of "look, this guy didn't even read the first sentence of the article summary!".

That's you. That's what you sound like..

Re:License to print money. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

actually after reading the article (after making the post [after reading the article summary]) its a case of "look, this guy read the the article summary but didn't actually understand it, then posted on the misinterpretation, got burned by someone who did comprehend the article summary, and then felt like a true asshat."

Re:License to print money. . .

[deep44]

ahh, another classic case of "look, this guy initially misinterpreted the article summary and posted a harmless one-liner showcasing his misinterpretation, and then after someone replied (having obviously read the article) with a jokingly negative comment on said misinterpretation, the original poster tried to slide in the 'last word' (also jokingly negative) a couple days later."

If I've seen it once, I've seen it a thousand times.. that's why I have email notification turned on for comment replies! And I'm just crazy enough to come back and reply a week later!

So that would be "check", and "mate". Game, set, match. Just think, all this because Blizzard decided to sue some poor kid..

Re:License to print money. . .

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

. . . I just got owned twice, I shall admit defeat lest I get owned three times :P

And a valuable lesson hath been learned.

Re:Blizzard is (not) right

[Dr. Donuts]

It is not necessary to receive permission to publish a work. If that were so, every review that negatively commented on a movie or a book would be 86'd. It would be impossible to comment on any work without making direct references to it.

As far as your capitalist comment, a company would only allow permission if the work would favorably impact their bottom line.

Lastly, you most certainly can use a "Brand" when selling a product of your own, as long as you make note of whom that "Brand" belongs to, and correctly make attributions. If I say "Cleans 10% better then Tide(TM)", I'm perfectly within my rights to do so. I know you've all seen the commercials, for example, that say Oust is more effective in cleaning airborne bacteria then Lysol.

This guy wasn't attempting to take WoW and start selling it as his own. He created a work of his own that made attributions to any brands, trademarks, and copyrights of the respective owners. Now, if Blizzard had come out with a guide of it's own saying "How to make Phat Gold and Other Farming Techniques" and the author basically repackaged and resold it, then that would be different.

The author is likely to lose not based off technical grounds, but rather from a lack of resources.

Re:It's about the content and the money

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying paraphrasing is/should be illegal?

God, I really hope you're joking.

After the bd.net saga...

[Anonymous Coward]

...you guys are surprised? But you'll keep forking over your $15/month anyway. Oooo, shiny!

What's next?

[kimvette]

Will Microsoft sue for various reference books for the upcoming versions of Vista and Office?

Will Apple start suing publishers for distributing OS/X documentation?

Hey, maybe they'll even take the next leap and start suing third-party developers, since obviously referencing the OS by calling the API is copyright infringement!

Anyone from Blizzard here? Don't those leaps I'm proposing in the above scenarios look idiotic? Well, your suit against someone who developed a strategy guide (a VERY common type of publication in the gaming community, FYI) looks equally idiotic - more so, actually, because such guides help to sell the very game you purport to be protecting.

Re:What's next?

[Dr. Donuts]

RTFA. The guide developer is suing Blizzard, not the other way around.

Re:What's next?

[kimvette]

RTFA yourself, Blizzard is mis-applying the DMCA and sending cease-and-desist notices to the strategy guide author. Blizzard is firing first. Are you a Blizzard rep trying to put spin on the issue? What normally follows cease-and-desist letters (even unjustified ones) when such so-called "infringement" issues are alleged when the author continues? That's right, a civil suit.

Blizzard is in the wrong here. Obviously.

"Derivative Works"

[PhxBlue]

I'm no lawyer, but I'm willing to bet Blizzard is working under the derivative works clause of the Copyright Act. In essence, "derivative works" means that I own the rights not just to what I have created but also to what I have not yet created.

For example: If I write an science fiction novel with original characters, settings, etc., I own not only the story I have written but also the characters and the settings I have written about. I can create further works based on those characters and settings, which promotes the original purpose of copyright law (at least as I understand it).

If, on the other hand, I want to write a novel set in the Farscape universe, I can't just go out and write the story. For one thing, someone else owns that universe--and aside from the capital they stand to lose if I write and publish something set in their universe, they also stand to lose the intellectual integrity. What would Farscape look like if any schmo could publish material about it?

That's what I think Blizzard is protecting here--not just its right to make money off its product, but the ability to make sure people who participate in WOW are getting information that's at least somewhat accurate.

Re:"Derivative Works"

[Mr2001]

What would Farscape look like if any schmo could publish material about it?

I dunno.. what would America look like if any schmo could publish material about it?

It'd look just the same as it always did. Fan fiction can't change Farscape any more than Uncyclopedia can change the United States by writing a goofy article about it. People are smart enough to know the difference between actual episodes of the Farscape TV show, and unofficial material written by fans that happens to use the same characters, don't you think?

Re:"Derivative Works"

[Dr. Donuts]

How-to guides would be hard pressed to be classified as derivative works. The reason so is because they are composed of matters of fact, instructions, and of personal opinion. The fact that you may have to use terms that are part of a copyrighted product in order to provide information, instructions, or opinion doesn't make it a derivative work.

This would be just as ridiculous an argument as classifying a movie review as a "derivative" work because someday I might write a review of my own movie.

Contrary to some folks interpretation, you don't "own" the rights to your work. If you truly "owned" something, then it would always be your property. However, copyright doesn't work that way. You are however granted limited distribution privileges of your creative works for the purposes of providing economic incentive to create those works for a (supposedly) limited amount of time, after which time the author no longer has such priveleges.

Limits to these distribution priveleges include Fair Use and First Sale doctrines.

The problem with so many issues today centers around the flat out misconception of how "Intellectual Property" works. And folks that do know, will tell you that it's in fact not property, but rather priveleges granted by the government. And those priveleges do have limits.

If I want to write a novel set in the Farscape Universe, I'm free to do so right now. I just can't distribute that work for another 75 years or so.

Blizzard is welcome to make money off it's products, but there are limits as to how far copyright laws extend exclusivity priveleges.

Re:"Derivative Works"

[PhxBlue]

People are smart enough to know the difference between actual episodes of the Farscape TV show, and unofficial material written by fans that happens to use the same characters, don't you think?

People could pretty easily tell the difference between actual episodes of Farscape (or actual Farscape books) and fanfiction. But would it be so easy to tell the difference if the fanfiction books were right next to the canon works on bookstore shelves?

Re:"Derivative Works"

[Mr2001]

But would it be so easy to tell the difference if the fanfiction books were right next to the canon works on bookstore shelves?

It would be if the titles didn't use the word "Farscape", or if they clearly indicated that they were unofficial. If you're just worried about readers being confused--which, IMO, is the only legitimate reason to limit the use of terms or characters written by someone else--then you only need to worry about the packaging and marketing, not the content of the books.

Peachy

[Anonymous Coward]

As usual, I am impressed with the clarity that you bring to a subject. It makes it easier to consider the best aspects from both sides of an argument, and get to the heart of the matter.

Thanks again for sharing your views.

I can explain blizzards actions really easily.

[t0qer]

They've got a boatload of money now and have nothing better to spend it on than lawyers.

Re:I can explain blizzards actions really easily.

[Anonymous Coward]

Blizzard are being taken to court, not the other way round.

solving the problem with one step!

[dino213b]

Here is a socialist approach to problem-solving : get rid of the problem; so, avoid this legal battle by not playing World of Warcraft.

I cite this web site as my irrational reasons why to quit WoW:

http://www.redrival.com/hateown/

It hurts people (and companies) hardest when you hit them in their pockets.

Re:solving the problem with one step!

[Anonymous Coward]

"It hurts people (and companies) hardest when you hit them in their pockets."

Especially if their testicles are lopsided.

Re:This isn't about the content, it's about the mo

[luther349]

gold farmers are selling a service. i rember sony tryed stoping them once and failed thers no law agenst it. but such things are not supported by the companys so if you get ripped off its your problem. not that i support them sence they throw off the games econmey. but one thing is true bliizerd sony etc do not get a cut from gold farmers.

Re:This isn't about the content, it's about the mo

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, noone is going to give two jack shits about your opinion on kickbacks from secondary MMORPG economies if you can't even spell "economy" correctly. Or Blizzard. Or make a coherent, sensible point.

The screenshots may be the problem

[Jugalator]

I think it can be generally agreed on that writing about WoW on its own isn't an infrigement; books do this all day, and then also makes it clear who owns the trademark, like this one did, and everyone is happy. But... These guides also had screenshots, which he said would fall under fair use, however, these books are also sold for profit, which means he's profiting in part from Blizzard's material.

For fair use to be most clearly applicable, the content need to not impact the copyright owner, the material isn't sold, and isn't used to profit from it. But these things aren't fulfilled here, which puts him in a grey area, and I can understand why greddy Blizzard lawyers make a fuss of this when they can.

Re:Blizzard is (not) right

[Jugalator]

The author is likely to lose not based off technical grounds, but rather from a lack of resources.

Or invalidated fair use rights due to profiting off their copyrighted material.
Look at the complete case before going with traditional Slashdot pessimism. ;-)

Good, and Great

[Anonymous Coward]

It is great to see the little guy stand up for fair use. I hope his attorney is generous. That is to say, I hope he gets to keep a reasonable amount of his award when Blizzard gets their asses handed to them in court.

I am amazed that people play these boring ass MMO games in the first place. There is not even a satisfying illusion of skill required to play the game. Any jackass with too much time can become a master of this virtual world. How pathetic.

I am amazed that people subscribe to a service form a company that so openly attacks free speech in the name of its "intellectual property rights". Reverse engineering? No, son, thats "infringing".

I am amazed that people subscribe to a service from a company that punishes customers for bugs in its own software. Just imagine if the rest of the software industry fired their customers for finding bugs. Sign me up so that I can shut down our bug database.

Re:Heh. Next thing you know...

[Chatterton]

I class it as black humor. And i feel like you too on this story :(

Competition

[PhotoGuy]

I don't know about the World of Warcraft worlds, but in the console gaming worlds, it often seemed that the cheater guides were a big part of their business model. Create a game with a bunch of tricks and puzzles, then publish an expensive book showing you how to solve them. Seemed like pretty standard fare.

To me, it seems pretty clear cut, that if someone else wants to solve those same puzzles, and publish and sell their experiences doing so, it shouldn't be a "copyright violation" as long as they don't include any copyrighted material.

I'd just as soon see a lot of competition in this field, to drive those prices down, and keep the game makers main incentive, the creation of quality games, not game guides. (Nowadays, most games seem to have pretty good free walkthroughs available on the 'net, thankfully.)

Re:Competition

[Spinalcold]

Thing is, Blizzard can't properly make a guide for WoW, it would be out of date within a month. They're constantly adjusting abilities, adding new events and areas to the world, adding new items. The game is constantly evolving, and as such, game guides are only good for a month as they are, then they'll have to be updated. The only way Blizzard would be able to make a game guide would be an online one, but then there's already a few of those that have a much more extensive guide than they'd ever put out.

Re:Competition

[Daggon]

Also remember that there is a much larger service component to the MMO buisness than your standard out of the box game. Since the game is partly a service the Terms of Service Agreement with the customer is much more important. If something in a game guild advocates violation of the TSA in some way (not sure if thats the case here) Blizzard has to act.

I'd like to see more specifically what Blizzard is objecting to in this, as I can kinda see how both sides have a good arguement.

Dude has got to win!

[ami-in-hamburg]

It seems to me that Blizzard's claims of IP infringement have no basis whatsoever. He didn't reverse engineer their software. He made ownership of the TMs clear. He used images within copyright law.

Is this to say that a person can no longer play a game, or use any other piece of software should he lose this case, and compile a HowTo based on personal expierence with the game or software?

Will someone PLEASE publish a "DMCA for Idiots" book! I love the Yellow and Black covers!

"DMCA for Idiots" book

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no rights. All your wealth are belong to us!

Hard to comment without having seen the book ...

[Peteroo]

... but I'd note that there was a tradition of unauthorized game guides from commercial guide publishers in the mid and late '90s. (A search for "unathorized strategy guide" on Amazon.com gets 210 hits.) However, now you rarely see unauthorized guides and I wonder whether their legality was ever successfully challenged ... or if it simply proved more timely and profitable for guide publishers to license the rights. Peter

over-zealous

[tabby]

Odds are there's a guy in the cubical dungeon at Blizzard that has the task of trawling through online auctions looking for people selling WoW game content (Characters, gold, item etc) and trying to get them removed. He's either sloppy, mis-interpreted his directives or just doesn't care. Or his supervisor ok'd it for the same reasons.

The question is whether the Blizzard high-ups will pull this short & admit that an employee/middle-manager made a mistake or if they will take it as an opportunity to try to create precendent in this area for the sake of profit.

Upload it to P2P

[Hyperhaplo]

This is where Kazaa and LimeWire are actually useful. Take the pictures down from the website. Upload them to tor. Link to the TOR url. Posting to usenet is also useful, but not as good as having the images floating in P2P space.

I used to have a large collection of AMcC 'fan art'. Except for book covers and pictures I didn't have any 'official' pieces in there.

When in doubt ask google.

I feel sorry for the artist in this case (if this is true).

where do we really draw the line ?

[erdraug]

Let's say i'm a journalist, right? I can write an article on WoW, or give WoW tips and i won't get sued, right?

How about if i am the editor of the computer-games-related magazine, the above journalist works for : I won't get sued for selling the magazine containing said article, right?

And how about if i do a special issue? A WoW themed issue of the magazine, filled with WoW related articles? Do the various journalists working on the issue risk getting sued? How about the editor, is he getting sued?

How about if we do an extra issue? Let's say the magazine is published every month and i decide do do a special, WoW dedicated, 13th issue? Is Blizzard going to knock on the editor's door saying he can't publish his magazine?

How about if the magazine is big enough for it to be printed in paperback format, instead of the normal magazine format? Can't the editor of the above mentioned magazine change formats to reduce printing expenses? Or is it illegal?

How about if a journalist asks the editor to write a book about WoW? It might get him the pulitzer prize or whatever - should the editor comply? Will he be breaking the law? Will the journalist?

Can somebody point out to me where do we draw the line?