Slashdot Mirror
Tetris Clones Pulled From Android Market
sbrubblesman writes "The Tetris Company, LLC has notified Google to remove all Tetris clones from Android Market. I am one of the developers of FallingBlocks, a game with the same gameplay concepts as Tetris. I have received an email warning that my game was suspended from Android Market due to a violation of the Developer Content Policy. When I received the email, I already imagined that it had something to do with it being a Tetris clone, but besides having the same gameplay as Tetris, which I believe cannot be copyrighted, the game uses its own name, graphics and sounds. There's no reference to 'Tetris' in our game. I have emailed Google asking what is the reason for the application removal. Google promptly answered that The Tetris Company, LLC notified them under the DMCA (PDF) to remove various Tetris clones from Android Market. My app was removed together with 35 other Tetris clones. I checked online at various sources, and all of them say that there's no copyright on gameplay. There could be some sort of patent. But even if they had one, it would last 20 years, so it would have been over in 2005. It's a shame that The Tetris Company, LLC uses its power to stop developers from creating good and free games for Android users. Without resources for a legal fight, our application and many others will cease to exist, even knowing that they are legit. Users will be forced to buy the paid, official version, which is worse than many of the ones available for free on the market. Users from other countries, such as Brazil in my case, won't even be able to play the official Tetris, since Google Checkout doesn't exist in Brazil; you can't buy paid applications from Android Market in these countries."
Falling Blocks is a nice little game. It's on my phone right now, so here's hoping that Google won't 'pull an Amazon' and vanish it off the device.
Reply to That ||
I wonder if you made a Pac-Man clone what Google might think of that?
Reply to Google thanking them for policing the internet, but that your application does not violate any laws. Next thing you know the maker of the whoopie cushion will issue taken down notices for farting apps.
Doen't the DMCA allow you to just send a "No I don't infringue on the copyright" back to Google and have your app not taken down?
Tetris company doesn't like clones
iPhone users hoping to download the free Tetris clone, Tris, had better do so quickly: the game is being pulled from the App Store on iTunes tomorrow due to pressure from both Apple and The Tetris Company, which owns the rights to Tetris.
- August 26, 2008
To the developers: pick a different game. Tetris has quite a litigious history
Or, more to the point... if you're going to spend the time to make a game clone, couldn't you at least do a quick google for "[Game] lawsuits"?
This might be a case where the EFF might be interested to help.
Also, banding all together, you are 35 people strong, considerably lowering expenses.
Markus
After reading the document, the whole argument seems to hinge on the use of the Tetris registered name. (Many of the infringing applications were using the Tetris name in the application name)
There are at least two dimensions on which you can get it back up:
Of course with Android you always have the option of getting software from sources other than the main sanctioned market. Unlike a certain other smartphone OS I could mention.
Google has to remove the items in question to be in safe waters with the DMCA.
You can choose to assert that you own the copyright for your app. Once you do that, Google must forward your information to The Tetris Company, LLC, and reinstate your app. It now becomes a matter between you and The Tetris Company, LLC, and Google cannot be held liable for damages.
Then if The Tetris Company, LLC chooses to do so, they can file a court case. That's probably the tricky bit, as you seem to indicate, that you're in Brazil and not the US, where they are likely to file.
But - ask a lawyer. I'm not one, the above is just how I understand the DMCA works.
You believe that gameplay can't be copyrighted. You cherry picked some unnamed and unknown sites that support your believe about gameplay and copyright.
One web search shows as the first hit a nice page from the US Copyright Office that demonstrates he's right. And that's not specific to the US (left as a web search exercise to the reader).
Donate free food here
I guess you're typing this on your original IBM branded PC, right?
(To everyone else: I hope to God he's not using a Mac, coz if he is, my flippant remark will be blown out of the water and then buried under a veritable Mt Everest of smug)
I hate printers.
I just went to the Android Market, searched for it, found it, and downloaded it.
I'm always amused by how the same geek crowd that will rip a film-maker or author to shreds over re-hashing some common plot device will support to the death a software developer demonstrating the same lack of unoriginality.
"Falling Blocks!" The guy made a Tetris clone and called it "Falling Blocks!"
Where's the pride?
Pfft!!! Create something original? That's just crazy talk!
You believe that gameplay can't be copyrighted. You cherry picked some unnamed and unknown sites that support your believe about gameplay and copyright.
Gameplay cannot be copyrighted. There are solid cases in international copyright case history to support this claim, the first that comes to my mind is the one involving Scrabble and the Italian variant Scarabeo. Mattel went after EG, and lost the case because the game mechanics were not protectable under any form (copyright, trademark, patent).
"I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
Do you find joy in driving a new shiny Ferrari?
Do you find joy in driving a new shiny Ferrari bought with money from sales of a game that uses the same ancient concept reused thousands times any less?
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Assuming I'm understanding your question correctly, I enjoy shiny things more when they're bought with money I got doing something creative rather than derivative.
For me this seems fairly similar to claiming that Doom, Quake and a number of other FPS games should not exist because they're clones of Wolf3D.
The old arcade games are getting a new lease on life with these mobile devices. So that's why they are doing this, it's simple economics. I mean whoever wrote Pacman, etc.. never thought they would be able eventually to play it on a phone. This is a new revenue stream and they want in on it. In a way, they wrote the original code, they had the inspiration to do it. So, they do deserve some credits in some form. When someone decides to write a "clone" version of a game.. Maybe he's improving it, or not, it doesn't matter. This person isn't being 'original'. This person took someone else work and recreated it. Bottom line, I would say, if someone goes out of their way to recreate someone else's effort for money, don't be surprised if the creators get a hissy fit about it :)
As soon as I read this story, I did a Google search for Falling Blocks for Android, went to his web site, and downloaded the game to my G1. That's the beauty of a phone OS that allows you to choose whether you want to be able to install out-of-market apps. My "trendy" iPhone-using friends wouldn't have had that option -- if Apple says you can't have it, you can't have it.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
however, the DMCA does not FORCE them to put it back up when you file a counter. They can choose not to put it back up
If the service provider doesn't put it back up within 14 business days after its designated agent receives the counter-notice from the subscriber, its immunity under 17 USC 512(g)(1) expires, and the subscriber can sue the service provider.
and since there is so little to gain by putting it back up.. no attorney would ever recommend that they do so.
Where do you draw that conclusion? From the statute, 512(g)(4): "A service provider's compliance with [the counter-notification procedure] shall not subject the service provider to liability for copyright infringement with respect to the material identified in the [original takedown] notice."
FFS, not this bullshit again. Yes the EPO will grant patents on anything if you're stupid enough to pay. They are NOT legally enforceable though. Read the section entitled "Enforceability before national courts" from your own link.
Listen to my latest album here
If I'm not mistaken, that's an article about board games. Not sure how video games translate into that
More things to look up: idea and expression (copyright), scenes a faire (copyright), Lotus v. Borland (copyright), functionality doctrine (trademark), and Dastar v. Fox (trademark).
If I'm not mistaken, that's an article about board games.
The first paragraph on the linked page is about games in general. Every definition of copyrightable matter I've ever seen also always mention that only the *expression* and not the underlying idea can ever be copyrightable. It's simply one of the fundamental properties of copyright. There's also a UK Court of Appeals ruling confirming that specifically for computer games.
Not sure how video games translate into that, and how that interacts with the DMCA, which covers... Digital... Media... Copyrights...
The DMCA is about the enforcement of copyright. Afaik, it does not extend the scope of what is copyrightable. Computer programs (including games) have been copyrightable since long before the DMCA came into existence.
Donate free food here
If you could copyright game play, I'd imagine the guys that wrote Wolfenstien3d would have more money than God right now.
Actually, you can patent gameplay. You can't copyright it. In fact, games ranging from Monopoly to Magic: The Gathering have been patented. A prior collectible card game patent was issued in 1904. There really is nothing new under the sun. Random citations:
Monopoly
Magic
However, Tetris isn't patented so the whole patent issue is moot. Besides, trademarks and patents aren't enforced by the DMCA.
Three things:
1) So you are claiming you are an expert? I asked a question, that sort of was answered in the OP, but considering the source was the guy who wrote the rip-off of Tetris, I was wondering if his summary was accurate.
2) If a larger company did something like this, people would react differently, I suspect.
3) I love people like you, mouthing off on the internet, saying someone is a total retard because they may not understand the ins and outs of "IP protections". I'm not a programmer. I don't know about IP laws because I don't create (or in this case, ripoff) "art". I hope you feel good about yourself, you smug asshole.
Sent from your iPad.
If you could copyright game play, I'd imagine the guys that wrote Wolfenstien3d would have more money than God right now.
Even without copyright on gameplay, John Carmack managed to get pretty close to that given that he has his own aerospace company :)
Donate free food here
As usual, slashdot missed the other informative story about how the Tetris Company never paid the real inventor anything.
The Tetris Company *is* partly Alexey Pazhitnov's (i.e. the original inventor of Tetris). It was formed after he regained the rights to the game in the mid-1990s, long *after* the likes of Nintendo had released their uber-popular version of the game.
So, on the one hand you could argue that Pazhitnov had the right to some payback through them. On the other hand, they don't (to the best of my knowledge) have the rights to Tetris-style gameplay in itself, only the trademarks, and it's pretty contemptible that they're using bullying abuse of the legal process to shut out Tetris clones, whether or not you believe those have the right to exist.
It's also ironic that Pazhitnov invented a game was one whose appeal was its very simpleness, that isn't really enhanced by bells and whistles (which arguably detract from it), and that has little need for anything added beyond the archetypcal classic Game Boy version.... and yet the success of his Tetris Company depends on just that, i.e. selling endless new versions of that game which for the reasons given only ever end up being pointlessly bell-and-whistled bloatings of the original.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
DMCA isn't about Patents- it's about Copyrights and as such, you can't Copyright the gameplay concepts. More to the point, even if this WERE about Patents, any relevant Patents would be over 20 years old. YOU do the math there. At most, you're talking Trademark- which can't be enforced with a DMCA takedown (Law doesn't cover, the ISP doing it can get sued for breach of contract/agreement...the Trademark holder has to be suing and file for an Injunction at that point that gets granted...) and is only an issue if you use the name "Tetris" within your own.
This is about misusing the DMCA to "protect" a game that literally CAN'T be protected under law at this point except for Trademark protection.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Kind of off topic but the DS version added a ton to the game (not just multi-player modes.. which were also great), give it a try!
-JP
Hey, I'm on the same boat. I also made a really awesome game of falling 4th order polyominoes (tetris style game) called BitBlocks. It was wildly successful, had much better ratings than even the official Tetris game by EA. My game was on the Android Market for 3 months, and became one of the top 5 games for the Android. On March 9th it got removed from the Android Market.
Your options are limited. You can't fight The Tetris Company because you can't afford the lawyer expenses. If you did have the money to fight The Tetris Company, you would surely win in court, but the court victory would be a loss for The Tetris Company as well as you because it would mean The Tetris Company no longer has any authority to stop people from making falling block games and there would be a flood of falling block games on the market, perhaps some even better than your game. (See Lotus vs Borland, in the end Borland won, but Lotus and Borland both lost when Microsoft came out with Excel)
What The Tetris Company is doing is anti-competitive. Under The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, monopolizing a trade using anti-competitive practices is a felony punishable by up to $10,000,000 fine and three year jail sentence. According to DOJ web site:
The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.
(http://www.justice.gov/atr/laws.htm) -- that paragraph entirely describes what The Tetris Company is doing with falling block games.
I don't know if the DOJ will care or even lift a finger, but it's worth a try and if people on slashdot can create a big enough wave perhaps they will be swayed to investigate The Tetris Company. You can report antitrust concern here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm
So I urge all slashdotters to file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Show you care about tetris, file a complaint against The Tetris Company! It's time we put an end to their monopoly.
But based on my experience with Youtube (i.e. Google), they just ignore counter-claims
I've been able to get a Tetris-related video restored on a counter-notice. It took significantly longer than the federally mandated 14 business days, and it took a follow-up e-mail to copyright at youtube.com, but at least it's back up.
If they didn't comply with the formal communication that states that the work is not infringing, then you could criticize Google for "policing the internet", but there is no evidence that there was a formal document refuting infringement.
Google was acting in compliance with a dumb law, so criticize the law, the lawmakers, and the copyright holders, but there is no reason here to criticize those forced to follow it.