Facebook Scrabble Rip-off Capitalizes on Mattel's Lethargy

mlimber writes "The Facebook app Scrabulous was written by two Scrabble-loving brothers in India, has over 700,000 users, brings in about $25,000 per month in advertising revenue, and is in flagrant violation of copyright law. The corporate owners of Scrabble, Hasbro and Mattel, have threatened legal action against the creators and have made deals with Electronic Arts and RealNetworks to release official online versions of the game. But according to an NYTimes article, 'Scrabulous has already brought Scrabble a newfound virtual popularity that none of the game companies could have anticipated,' and according to one consultant to the entertainment industry, 'If you're Hasbro or Mattel, it isn't in your interest to shut this down.' Hasbro's partner RealNetworks is 'working closely' with the piratical brothers, but Mattel says that 'settling with the [brothers] would set a bad precedent' for other board games going online."

Comments

Uh, Flagrant Violation of What?

[spun]

You can't copyright the rules to a game, sorry. Trademark violation, maybe.

Re:Uh, Flagrant Violation of What?

[Chris Burke]

You can copyright a piece of visual art -- even if it's what you'd call "graphic design" -- and assuming the board of Scrabulous looks just like the real game board, then it very well could be a copyright violation.

Re:Uh, Flagrant Violation of What?

[langelgjm]

Trademark violation, maybe.

Right. Microsoft sued about the name "Lindows" as a trademark violation, not copyright. They didn't win, but they did settle, and it's not called Lindows anymore. "Scrabulous" is clearly making a reference to the Scrabble trademark, and is profiting from that reference. There are probably other issues, as people have mentioned, about gameplay (the layout of the board), but I think the thing with the name has got to be about trademark.

The problem is that viral vids sell music

[WillAffleckUW]

The problem is that free viral videos sell more music songs than killing off the viral vids, just as free viral social apps like Scrabilicious sell more Scrabble games for the licensors than kill off the free social app will.

Don't kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs ...

Re:The problem is that viral vids sell music

[iamhassi]

"just as free viral social apps like Scrabilicious sell more Scrabble games for the licensors than kill off the free social app will. Don't kill off the goose that lays the golden eggs ..."

Golden eggs? Hasbro sells 1-2 million boards a year, and that's before the "golden egg" Scrabulous existed. They don't need Scabulous.

However these brothers are still making 25k/mo on something Hasbro had to pay good money to buy. And they already make a PC version of Scrabble. This is like someone making a online version of Starcraft and then bitching when Blizzard comes after them. What sense does that make?

if you want to use someone's property you have to do the right thing: ask them to use it and pay them if they demand it. You can't just steal it and say "but I'm doing some good with it!" Life doesn't work like that.

They have a claim

[the computer guy nex]

Naming a game "Scrabulous" obviously (court to decide) builds from the name Scrabble.

Would Scrabulous be as popular if it wasn't instantly recognizable? Probably not.

"bad precedent"

[sehlat]

Which tells you just who really runs Mattel/Hasbro, and it isn't the CEO or stockholders, it's the lawyers.

On the other hand, given that the company hasn't produced anything new in years that was worth paying attention to, this comes as a surprise how?

Re:Scrabble cannot be copyrighted.

[iamhassi]

"Yeah they're so dumb that they're... making lots of money....Seems like it's you who isn't bright."

Yeah, drug dealers make a lot of money and look where they end up? Still think they're bright?

They stole the game and put it online. Why are people defending them? They pirated the game: when people rip movies and put them online and sell them for $25,000/mo and the FBI raids their home does anyone on /. say "Hey that's not right! They were only stealing money from the creators!"

I hope Hasbro sues them for every dime they've made. You can't just rip-off popular board games and cry foul when the owners bitch. How stupid is that? Anyone want to make a online Monopoly... er, I mean "Monopolious"... and cry then Parker Brothers sues? It'd be total anarchy if Hasbro let's these guys continue. Hell if they somehow get away with this I'm making Starcraft Universe (WoW clone) and I'm gonna be a millionaire!

Re:Scrabble cannot be copyrighted.

[rtb61]

In this case it has a whole lot less to do with Hasbro and much more to do with EA. EA have spent a huge amount of money to gain access to the Hasbro game licences, which in turn has pretty much swallowed up pretty much every other game board manufacturer from the past.

They are expecting to make huge amounts of money from those old fashioned games, unfortunately reality is setting and and old fashioned board games, are really just bored games, games people play when they are truly bored but have absolutely no desire to pay for them ie. once a request for payment is made, people just shift to another free web based game.

So as it turns out the oldest board games that managed to survive have also mostly lost or are about to lose their copyright protection and of course there a very of those that even marginally succeed. Most of the titles only get the odd free nostalgia play and EA is already starting to feel the bite of money going out and very little returns and is forcing the issue via Hasbro.

Wrong Strategy, Mattel

[pz]

Step 1: observe that board games are a dying market

Step 2: actively and repeatedly suppress on-line implementations, despite the obvious unmet market need and potential source of revenue

Step 3: when a wildly popular implementation pops up, instead of licensing it and splitting the revenue, try to squash it on shaky legal grounds

Step 4: hire a big gaming company in the US to implement a new version at 10x the cost of licensing the developing-country version

Did I miss anything? Sounds like a broken strategy, Mattel.

Turning it around...

[shark72]

I know that sympathies are clearly with the Scrabblicious developers here, so I won't try to argue that point. The feeling in the community appears to be that since the guys aren't selling it and because Scrabble's been on the market for a while, it's fair game for a copy, and no authorization or payment to the rightsholder should be necessary. But, as a thought experiment, what would happen if the situation were reversed?

1. Some independent developer comes up with a totally new game concept and codes it as a Facebook app. It's not something simple, like Sudoku, but a game with distinctive play mechanics, board artwork, and the like.
2. Hasbro (or some similarly large commercial entity) then copies the game and starts making money off of it. Not an "inspired by," and not a new game that is evocative of the Facebook app -- a direct copy, down to the rules and gameboard artwork. They don't seek permission. And, they don't pay the rightsholder -- the independent developer who came up with the game.

I think it's obvious that the consensus Slashdot sympathies would not be with Hasbro.