36-Hour Lemmings Port Gets Sony Cease and Desist

Zerocool3001 writes "The recently featured 36-hour port of the original Palm version of Lemmings to the iPhone and Palm Pre has received a cease and desist letter from Sony. Only one day after submitting the app for approval on the two app stores, the developer has put up a post stating that he 'did this as a tribute to the game — we can only hope that Sony actually does a conversion for platforms like iPhone and Palm Pre in the near future.' The text of the cease and desist letter is available from the developer's website."

Comments

May I be the first to say:

[tessellated]

Fuck you Sony!

Re:May I be the first to say:

[jaxxa]

Probably not, I think a lot of people have said that before.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[DrXym]

Yeah fuck you Sony for protecting your intellectual property!

Re:May I be the first to say:

[keitosama]

Did you even read the mail they sent him? Sony were being extremely nice about the whole thing.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[LambdaWolf]

Yup. Hey, it could be worse, they could have advertised the game as a platform feature and then forcibly disabled it after it was paid for.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

You've got Sony all wrong here. If you visited the developer's Web site, Sony actually writes about how gratuitous, err, I mean gracious and lenient they are:

Despite our knowledge that your infringement is knowing (hence your
disclaimer) we will give you one opportunity to avoid having to pay
substantial legal costs and damages (should we have to sue you).

If you will remove all your ports of Lemmings from the sites where you have
posted them or indeed now host them and undertake not to recreate or port
any other SCEE published games then we will not sue you and seek damages
for every copy of Lemmings that you have distributed.

You may not be able to Trademark DNA, but Sony has a Trademark AND copyright on Lemmings (even though family friendly Disney has prior art).

Re:May I be the first to say:

[tessellated]

Considering Sony's years old reputation of fuckin' its customers the only ceasing and desisting should be them.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[pinkushun]

I was really looking forward to playing this port. Up yours Sony!

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Psygnosis is now Sony Studio Liverpool.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[LordLucless]

Yeah, exactly. We issue them with monopoly powers, so they can continue to enrich our culture. What do they do? They sit on them, let them stagnate, and when somebody actually does act in the interest of the public, and makes them available on platforms the original provider has never supported nor, it seems, ever intends to, they shut him down.

So yes, screw Sony. They obtained their "intellectual property" under false pretences, and are now using it for the exact opposite of what it was intended for.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[LordLucless]

They said they'd give him 48 hours or they'd sue. How is that nice? They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially, they didn't offer to negotiate in order to allow distribution under their auspirces, it was a completely stock-standard C&D. The only way it could have been less "nice" was if they announced they were starting legal action against him immediately.

Do what we say, or we sue. You have 48 hours.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[BoberFett]

And this is why modern copyright is a complete failure. It is used today not as a tool to enrich both the copyright holder and the public through dissemination of ideas, but as a lock and key to prevent anyone else from using it by very intentionally not disseminating said idea..

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Do what we say, or we sue. You have 48 hours.

Like it or not it's rather what the law says than just Sony.
And given the damage the infringement would have caused in this guy's life, yes I agree Sony has been extremely nice in this case.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, what the law says is what Sony et al. want it to say.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[TheRaven64]

The port also seemed to include a lot of the original artwork, which they definitely do have copyright on. This is much nicer than Sony needed to be - in the US they could claim massive statutory penalties for distributing the game knowing that it contained copyrighted materials that he did not have a license for.

Of course, now that he has complied, the best thing for Sony to do is offer to buy the code from him. He's demonstrated that there's a market for Lemmings on various mobile platforms and already done the hard work of making the code work on them. It would also give Sony some great PR, and they could treat the existing downloads as a promotional offer.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially,

What others benefit from (or not) is not of their concern. They're concerned instead if it harms them by taking revenue away from them.

Do what we say, or we sue. You have 48 hours.

If Sony was smart, they'd now negociate a contract with the port author. It should be peanuts for them if they negociate a fixed value instead of something of the order of percentage-of-revenue-from-platform-sells (sorry, can't think of a more appropriate expression right now, the coffee machine is acting up this morning).

Re:May I be the first to say:

[ustolemyname]

Which seems damn nice in light of the fact that they could begin by... suing. (DMCA Cease and Desist rules only apply to service providers)

Re:May I be the first to say:

[aliquis]

Wherein does it lay though? I questioned myself that, though I know similar actions has been made for some other fan-made titles.

Where does the breach happen?
Is it:

* In using the game brand for their own title?
* Using copyrighted graphics to make their game look the same?
* Copying the idea?
* Creating something so similar that it's not a work of its own?

I assume it's ok to make a similar game? To make something called "badgers"? And eventually to draw somewhat like Lemmings but not really as graphics for your game?

What part of the IP are they breaking? Is it in making it look similar or copying the general idea/whole concept of the game? What is it protected by?

For similar games we've got Giana sisters vs Mario brothers, Doom II vs Duke Nuke'm and so on.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[DrXym]

Yeah, exactly. We issue them with monopoly powers, so they can continue to enrich our culture. What do they do? They sit on them, let them stagnate, and when somebody actually does act in the interest of the public, and makes them available on platforms the original provider has never supported nor, it seems, ever intends to, they shut him down.

How do you know that Sony hadn't licenced versions for those platforms? After all Lemmings is on virtually every platform under the sun (including mobile phones) so why is that so hard to believe?

Even if they weren't planning on doing it (unlikely) it is still their IP to do with as they please. I imagine also that the person who ported Lemmings was also under licence in the first place and therefore should have paid more attention when releasing copies for other platforms.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[icebraining]

* In using the game brand for their own title?
* Using copyrighted graphics to make their game look the same?

Basically this, if I'm not mistaken. Pretty sure Pingus is legal.

If you saw the video, this guys used all the original graphics, and the trademarked name.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[adamofgreyskull]

Wow. You are so insightful! Of course you can say whatever the hell you want to if you don't care whether or not it's the truth. It's incredibly disingenuous to say that they've been "sitting on" or letting Lemmings "stagnate":

The popularity of the game led to development of numerous ports to other systems, including most recently ports to the PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, and PlayStation 3 in 2006 and 2007, and the creation of several sequels.

Source: Wikipedia

How do you or Mobile1UP know that Sony wasn't planning on porting Lemmings to iPhone/iPad/Android? Firstly, you don't. Secondly, it's irrelevant! It's not a condition of copyright, patent or trademark law that you have to make your work available on all platforms past, present and future. The intended purpose of patent and copyright systems is indeed to provide incentive to produce, and therefore advance the state of the art, or enrich culture. However, Lemmings on the Amiga did that. Job done. They (now Sony) have copyright in the original game. That's what they get for developing the game (or rather..buying the developer of the game).

Besides which...you can buy a Lemmings game on a current generation console! How is that letting the property stagnate? And how in the name of Zeus' butthole did you get modded insightful? To have the bare-faced cheek to rip off a game, which, with the exception of a single-screen disclaimer that it's not authorised by SCEE, is indistinguishable from the original Lemmings, and then to try and distribute it through the Apple App-Store is possibly the most retarded thing I've ever seen since Sony tried to install rootkits on their customer's machines. We all love to support "the little guy" against "evil corporations" but this was the single most obvious outcome since that guy tried to play Russian Roulette with a semi-automatic pistol.

Nothing is stopping Mobile1UP from making their own version of a "Lemmings" game, with their own graphics resources/levels and their own music etc. Do you think they'd be happy if someone came along and made such an exact copy of one of their original games and started distributing it through the App-Store?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Golddess]

That's what they get for developing the game (or rather..buying the developer of the game).

Unless Sony owns Rockstar as well, it was the publisher they bought.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[couchslug]

"Fuck you Sony!"

Means nothing if you still buy their products.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[delinear]

They're not doing him a favour by issuing a cease and desist - it's a requirement of them demonstrating later that they mitigated against frivolous litigation by at least giving him the chance to rectify his actions. That's not "being nice" it's Sony playing CYA in case this does go to court. Nice would have been a personal response along the lines of recognising he's obviously a great fan but pointing out why this is harmful to their business and they have to protect their rights - the outcome would still have been the same but at least they'd have given the guy a little recognition for the fact that he did what he did out of genuine affection for their game, instead of just playing the usual monied-bully card.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[couchslug]

There is no obligation to disseminate entertainment.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[WWWWolf]

Psygnosis is now Sony Studio Liverpool.

It is? And here I was thinking "damn, why haven't the folks ported Lemmings to Wii yet? I mean, Wiimote would work so much better than the pads in the old console ports."

Now I know.

DAMN.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[datapharmer]

Did they actually copy sourcecode? If not then they didn't do anything wrong - gameplay is not protected under copyright law. IANAL.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[nmg196]

It seems you know nothing about the current development state of Lemmings and it's releases for current platforms and you also don't seem to understand what copyright is intended for (to allow the copyright owner to profitably distribute their application wherever they want to, without illegal pirates such as Mobile1UP from blatantly stealing the entire game idea/design/graphics/logo/trademark and having the unbelievable arrogance to actually submit to the App Store as though they somehow deserve credit and payment for hacking/copying somebody else's hard work and intellectual property). That guy is a total idiot and deserves everything he gets from Sony.

To be honest I think Sony were being VERY kind by simply sending a cease and desist. If it was me, I'd have wanted to sued the living shit out of that evil thieving company.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[WWWWolf]

numerous ports to other systems, including most recently ports to the PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, and PlayStation 3

Wow! And Microsoft is truly a master of portable software - after all, once you write the software, it runs on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7! Maybe even on the server editions! No complaints there whatsoever!

It's not a condition of copyright, patent or trademark law that you have to make your work available on all platforms past, present and future.

No, but it's a crappy business move: On short term, it displeases the potential customers who'd like to buy the game on platforms they own, and on longer term, it annoys retrogamers and game culture researchers who not only have to find the game, but also get the platform to run it on. If the game would have a market, no matter how small, decades after the release, and you fail to provide it to the market, you're basically wasting the opportunity: from business standpoint, you're not making any money, and from altruistic standpoint, no one's having any fun.

The intended purpose of patent and copyright systems is indeed to provide incentive to produce, and therefore advance the state of the art, or enrich culture. However, Lemmings on the Amiga did that. Job done.

Then why the hell the researchers wet their pants when they find out that someone has discovered some ancient philosopher's or author's lost works? As in actual text of the writings, not just second-hand facts that the writings may or may not have existed at some point of time? By your logic, surely it would have been enough that we would have, at one point, known that the works did in fact exist for certain?

My point is that if any product of the culture is just pushed out of the door and forgotten - "job done" - it's failing to work as part of our cultural output. One of the reasons copyrights expire is that it allows people to preserve the works and keep them alive. The only reason copyrights exist is that it encourages people to create the works and profit from them before everyone's entitled to make derivatives and preserve the work for posterity. The "preservation" is a natural state of people who don't create works themselves: Hoard copies of artwork, and enjoy them at their leisure.

The fact that the current producers of the culture are actively campaigning for throw-away culture and works that can't be preserved is very harmful. People who keep the works available for future generations to enjoy are doing a service to everyone, whether the media producers approve of it or not.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[MacGyver2210]

May I suggest some form of "Use it or Lose it" clause. I know this is probably wishful thinking, but it seems if you're not using your copyright to protect your financial interests, you should not be permitted to use it as a lock-down control like this.

Would Sony be losing money by allowing this to continue? No, not at all.

They don't use their copyright on the product on a regular basis to protect a version they have out there, and so they should no longer be allowed said copyright. Now if they had a version actively for sale or under development for sale soon, I could see how this would be in the interest of protecting their revenue.

This can be said about a lot of old-school media franchises. We could put an arbitrary limit of - say - 2 years on it. If you haven't had a product for sale covered under the copyright in two years, then you should lose it.

This should be sufficient for allowing any copyright holders time for profit recap from their material, while at the same time allowing the general public to continue their interest beyond what is provided by a single content creator.

If you're not selling anything, what are you protecting with it, precisely?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[tepples]

After all Lemmings is on virtually every platform under the sun (including mobile phones) so why is that so hard to believe?

If it's on mobile phones that are still sold, it's probably exclusive to Sony Ericsson mobile phones.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony has owned Psygnosis for over a decade. What cave have you been living in?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[quickgold192]

That's an interesting idea. I wonder how effective it would be for developers such as Aaron Ardiri to "violate" copyright but pay the copyright holders royalties for using their intellectual property. That way Sony wouldn't have to spend the money developing the new software and independent developers wouldn't have to worry about new ideas falling flat.

What are the chances Aaron Ardiri would have paid royalties if Sony had asked him to?
What are the chances Sony would have accepted royalties as sufficient recompense if Aaron Ardiri had suggested that model?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[jaygatsby27]

President Bush must have had a lot of copyrights.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[thegarbz]

They didn't mention that they understood he was not benefitting commercially.

Completely irrelevant in the face of blatant rip-off of copyrighted works. I hate copyright law as much as the next slashdot reader, but this again is a good example of where copyright law is actually doing exactly what it was intended to do, protect the rights of the copyright owners. Lemmings is not a abandonware, lemmings is being currently sold on several platforms, no permission was sought to make a clone of the game, and all the original copyrighted artwork was copied.

This is extremely nice of Sony. Remember this is Sony we are talking about. I'm frankly surprised they didn't just sue him straight up and then send one of their customer service representatives over to punch him in the face and kick his dog.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[TheRaven64]

Yes there is. Copyright is not intended as an incentive to create, it is intended as an incentive to publish. Society does not gain anything if you create the best ever novel but never let anyone read it. Society benefits greatly if you create this novel and then circulate it widely. Copyright is a bargain struck between creators and consumers - the consumers agree to grant a time-limited (in theory) monopoly to the creator, in exchange for the creator, in turn, publishing the work.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[MisterZimbu]

They're still using the property. There have been recent releases of Lemmings for both the PSP and the PS3 in the past year or two.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[ktappe]

Wow. You are so insightful! Of course you can say whatever the hell you want to if you don't care whether or not it's the truth. It's incredibly disingenuous to say that they've been "sitting on" or letting Lemmings "stagnate":

Actually, they have. I recently had to bittorrent a Lemmings hack to allow me to run Lemmings on Mac OS X. It's a RTE that executes the PC version in a WINE environment. OS X has been in existence for how long? A decade? If the lack of Lemmings on that platform is not "sitting on" their property, I'm not sure what is. And the iPhone has sold how many units with still no Lemmings? That is most certainly "sitting on" their property and letting it go moldy. So now Sony, instead of sending this guy a check for $100,000 to buy his creation (which they would make their money back on in one week of sales in the App Store), represses him with a C&D letter.

UTTER MORONS. Another reason I stopped buying anything Sony years ago and see no reason to start again.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[ktappe]

Which seems damn nice in light of the fact that they could begin by... suing.

So in your world a bully is "nice" by punching a guy in the arm instead of the nose?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[VGPowerlord]

Sony doesn't want you to buy it on the iPhone. They want you to have to buy a PSP if you want a mobile copy.

In case you missed it, SCEE (Sony Computer Entertainment Europe) is the European branch of Sony's PlayStation division.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[wbo]

Such a time limit wouldn't change a thing in this case because Sony has developed and is actively selling modern ports of Lemmings for the PSP and the PS3 via their Playstation Network online store.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind cave where normal people live and don't care what the chain of ownership of all the little studios is (or even which studios make which games).

Re:May I be the first to say:

[BobMcD]

How do you or Mobile1UP know that Sony wasn't planning on porting Lemmings to iPhone/iPad/Android? Firstly, you don't.

I'm not taking issue with the rest of your comment, but this right here is textbook intellectual dishonesty. It is positively non-obvious that if someone outside of Sony can do ALL of these ports in 36 hours, submit them to the publishers, etc, then there were no reasonable barriers for Sony to do so. Ergo, no plans, as such a plan would have been trivially executed by a single developer - possibly even an unpaid intern.

Your comment is equivalent to asking how we know the sun will set today or rise tomorrow, how we know our next breath won't be filled with molten lava, or how we know we aren't living trapped inside some Romulan Holodeck. We don't know any of these things, but we don't really need to spend a lot of time worrying about them either. Common sense, FTW.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[BobMcD]

I'd guess though that the trademark, art, and sound assets were certainly in violation.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[tnk1]

It's definitely worth thinking about, although just because he has it working doesn't mean they necessarily want it. If they don't have resources to manage the release and patch if necessary, it may be a bit of a risk.

More to the point, there is the possibility that they have some business arrangements or positions that make release on the iPhone or the other platforms to be undesirable to them. There's a lot of legitimate reasons for a big company like them to not release it for a platform that they had not planned on.

Having said that, yeah, I'd like to see this on my iPhone, so I hope they at least think about it.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[cowscows]

The fact of the matter is that none of that stuff matters. Maybe they're restricting the platforms that they release it on because they think it will drive sales of the particular platforms where the game is available? That's their right.

It's interesting how Nintendo hasn't released any Mario games on the Xbox360. They most certainly could do it, they've easily got the resources to hire people to do the port, and they've had years and years of time in which they could have done it. And heck, they probably would've sold millions of copies that way. And yet they've chosen not to, because they'd rather use the games to drive sales of their hardware.

While you can certainly argue whether or not Sony restricting lemmings to their hardware is a good business move, it doesn't give you the authority to decide that their IP rights are suddenly irrelevant.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[shentino]

Sadly, it doesn't really matter where, or even if, he breached copyright.

The bottom line is that Sony doesn't want this published, and they have a high powered legal team to muscle him into compliance.

The legal issues are barely even relevant when even having an airtight defense doesn't protect you from getting bankrupted by legal fees.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[shentino]

Nice life you have there, would be a shame if someone ruined it with a costly lawsuit...

Yup, about as friendly as the local mafioso "selling" you "insurance"

Re:May I be the first to say:

[WNight]

That doesn't serve society. Copyright should encourage publishing, NOT be usable as a stick to stop publishing.

At most they should be able to claim this guy's proceeds, but not prevent people from being able to consume to work.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[WNight]

No, it's doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights. Not to enrich the author, but to encourage publishing.

Here something was published, a new something (based on an old something) and copyright is being used to deprive the public of it. Copyright should never be used to reduce the amount of works available to the public.

Copyright law is just busted. If it said "right to profit" they'd let the guy publish and sue for his profits.

That said though, a large part of the C&D is very likely the trademark - which they do (legally) need to pursue.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[jdgeorge]

I think what the he's saying is that it's nicer to warn somebody and give them the opportunity to stop their undesirable behavior than it is to just go ahead and file suit without warning.

Here's what your analogy looks like when it's accurate: You tell somebody that "if you don't stop that within two days, I'm going to punch you in the nose," instead of just going ahead and punching them in the nose.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[StuartHankins]

It's interesting how Nintendo hasn't released any Mario games on the Xbox360.

The Mario games are platform leaders which identify strongly and uniquely with Nintendo systems. Allowing them to be published on other systems would devalue the Nintendo systems. As a hardware manufacturer Nintendo should avoid publishing these games on other consoles.

Sony creates both hardware and software, and has a large console offering too. However the difference here is that while the Lemmings franchise may have had games available on consoles, this franchise was never identified as a console game or strongly identified with a specific console; in fact it was identified on many different computer systems throughout the years. Sony has no reason to limit publishing this on all available platforms and if I were a stockholder I would want to know why, given the long-term success of the Lemmings franchise. Obviously there is a product with demand, and if some unaffiliated third party can hack something together in 36 hours on a bunch of platforms Sony should be able to do better with minimal resources.

Perhaps a method should be constructed such that if you sit on a product and do not release a version for a platform within 5 years (an arbitrary figure), you relinquish the rights to sue when other parties create a clone of your product, so long as you are attributed in (highly visible) credits? This would be far more interesting and beneficial to the public. Obviously if you haven't made a move within such a long time period you are not interested.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[wes mantooth]

Of course, now that he has complied, the best thing for Sony to do is offer to buy the code from him. He's demonstrated that there's a market for Lemmings on various mobile platforms and already done the hard work of making the code work on them. It would also give Sony some great PR, and they could treat the existing downloads as a promotional offer.

Sony likes to have platform exclusive stuff, one would think that it adds value to there hardware and drives hardware sales (which in turn sells software and services...). Why would they want to make money for Apple and possibly cut into PSP sales? Also, that "great PR" move would just open the floodgates for every schmo developer to port every game to any platform in efforts to get a payday.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Some years back I was giving some lectures, and got paid. But they made a mistake, and somehow I received the money of another teacher as well (cool! double salary!!).

When they realised that, I received a letter saying: "we've made a mistake. Give the money back or we sue you".

I found it harsh, but I didn't try to argue or have more days to give the money back.

In the Lemmings' case, they want the app removed quickly, with no arguing. And that's how it should be done: quickly (the mail is actually quite short), and with simplicity (no other choice).

Re:May I be the first to say:

[cowscows]

As a stockholder, you would have legal channels with which to pursue your complaints within Sony. But a company making business decisions that you disagree with does not give you permission to ignore their IP rights.

It's already legal to create clones of games, irregardless of when it was released. There are lemmings clones available already for many platforms. You just can't use the title and artwork straight from the game that you're copying.

In this particular case, you might say that it's obvious that Sony isn't interested in releasing lemmings for these other platforms, but that's a fairly subjective claim. Maybe they've had a couple of teams working on and off on an awesome new lemmings game for years, a la Duke Nukem Forever, yet mismanagement has caused it to continually fall through. I'll admit that that is a rather unlikely scenario for the Lemmings franchise, but it illustrates some of the problems with making assumptions about their intentions and then using those assumptions to justify overturning their IP rights.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[idontgno]

So in your world a bully is "nice" by punching a guy in the arm instead of the nose?

Since we're using metaphors of violence, let's use one which is faintly on-topic. Unlike yours.

"Nice" is using rock salt in my shotgun as I run trespassers off my posted property, instead of 00 steel.

The only element of unreality in this analogy is the whole "deadly force" thing for simple trespassing. I can't think of any real-life jurisdictions which permit that level of violence for property trespass, whereas the civil and criminal consequences of IP trespass, while not literally deadly, can seem so disproportionate that it would be a fiscal death penalty for any small company or individual.

But structurally, I think the analogy works.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Dexx]

What are the chances that a single developer would have been able to afford the royalties?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

In general, I would agree with your post. My only issue is, well, Sony hasn't *yet* produced a version of Lemmings that works on iOS--they might never. While not currently supported under law, I do believe the new author should have been allowed to keep his app up (regardless of Sony's feelings on the matter) until such time as Sony got around to producing an iOS version of the game; a solution that works better for society as a whole.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[StuartHankins]

The current IP scheme allows someone to sit indefinitely on a patent or idea without any demonstration of intention to use that idea, so you collectively get "weaponized" patent portfolios as everyone grabs what they can and holds it for future use. Patent trolls use this to stifle others or prevent implementation of their idea or patent. I don't agree with those uses, either produce a product within some initial timeframe or license it to others.

In my eyes the current scheme is broken and relegates interested people who would gladly pay a fee to use an idea to a pirate / subversive status. I'm more inclined to take the "information should be free" approach in light of Sony's inaction rather than embrace legal warfare as the preferred option.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[KDR_11k]

IIRC he was planning to release it for free, basically sabotaging Sony's ability to sell the game to iPhone owners (which may overlap with PSP owners) should they decide to do so. It's pretty much piracy. The rule of thumb for ports of other people's works is that you may be able to sell the executable if it is different enough but the user has to add the original game's files himself. You can get tons of engines that are compatible with Quake 1 data but they don't include the actual game data, you have to get that yourself.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Rakishi]

Patents are not copyrights.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[cowscows]

I agree that there are many things wrong with how IP law currently works, and patents seem to be the most seriuosly flawed area. That being said, I think it's important to understand that copyright is very different from patents, and mixing them both into a discussion only serves to confuse the issues.

That's not to say that copyright doesn't have problems. But in this lemmings case, copyright law doesn't really do anything to keep this developer from making the type of game that he wants to make. It just means that he has to come up with his own name and his own art assets. Now making art assets isn't trivial, but it's not a particularly difficult problem. This compares rather favorably to the situation we see with patents where you have a hard time building anything even moderately complicated without violating patents from lots of different people.

Anyways, I agree with you at some level, IP law is flawed, especially in how it deals with software. But in this particular case, I don't really see any justification for this developer to feel that he has any rights to distribute a game using the Lemmings name or art assets.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[KDR_11k]

Gamedata consists of more than just the executable and he just copied the rest of the gamedata. Gameplay is an abstract concept and thus not eligible for a patent or copyright but the data is a concrete implementation.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[KDR_11k]

That's what a C&D letter is. It is nice because they aren't required to give a warning or let him undo his mistakes to avoid getting sued, they could just have gone straight to the lawsuit stage as companies like Games Workshop and Marvell Comics do.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[KDR_11k]

The problem with negotiating a contract would be the usual "negotiating with terrorists" rule, if they form a contract with this guy others will follow and expect the same treatment.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[KDR_11k]

So what would that mean for emulation and ROMs? Should ROMs be permitted on any platform that can't natively run the game?

Some companies do allow fan-made ports but only as long as they don't ship with the game data and you'd still need a copy of the original game to play it. That's not the case here.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

They sit on them, let them stagnate

You can buy Lemmings from Sony right now, for both of their current systems. Research not your strong point?

when somebody actually does act in the interest of the public,

How is selling an unlicensed version of Lemmings for profit, "in the interest of the public"? How does it benefit anyone except the guy selling it?

and makes them available on platforms the original provider has never supported nor, it seems, ever intends to

Yeah, I can't imagine why Sony don't want to see their games on a competitor's platform. Better take Zelda away from Nintendo since they haven't ported it to the 360.

They obtained their "intellectual property" under false pretences, and are now using it for the exact opposite of what it was intended for.

Oh look, another e-lawyer with an JD from Slashdot U. Please tell us more about your deluded beliefs on IP law. I'm simply dying.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Anonymous Coward]

it runs on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7!

The PS2, PSP, and PS3 aren't compatible, they way XP, Vista, and 7 are. They don't use different CPUs, GPUs, and input mechanisms. You're not off to a good start if you don't want to sound hopelessly ignorant.

So, you can buy the games right now, but somehow that's not good enough? They have to be released on a competing platform as well?

No, but it's a crappy business move:

No, not really. Why would they want to benefit Apple or Google by supporting their platforms?

On short term, it displeases the potential customers who'd like to buy the game on platforms they own, and on longer term, it annoys retrogamers and game culture researchers

Retrogamers and 'game culture researchers' (who I'm sure account for a large segment of Sony's revenue) can play a classic game, today, by downloading it on PSN. What do they have to complain about?

I'd like to play New Super Mario Bros on the 360 instead of Wii, but mean old Nintendo won't let me. It's a violation of my human rights!

Re:May I be the first to say:

[WNight]

So? How does that benefit society?

This guy with 36 hours of work can produce something a bunch of people wanted.

Or we can all be taxed heavily to support the justice system being overloaded and bent to use a law meant to increase the public domain to instead block publication.

Yeah I see the law, but it's wrong. Written for a different era with different technologies. That genie will never go back in the bottle. The question is if we want to waste the rest of our once prosperous society by building tariff walls around our entrenched interests instead of changing with the times.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[jesset77]

The question is if we want to waste the rest of our once prosperous society by building tariff walls around our entrenched interests instead of changing with the times.

The former, duh. Those who have money don't give a rat's ass about enriching the public domain, they don't give a rat's ass about shooting themselves in the foot so long as everyone else gets shot in both feet and a shoulder, leaving them relatively ahead of the curve.

Most of the public doesn't care because they've been brainwashed into believing that culture must be dispensed from a vending machine to be legal or moral. And quite frankly, who needs to subvert freedom of speech when you can simply draw property lines over the words instead?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[geminidomino]

numerous ports to other systems, including most recently ports to the PlayStation Portable, PlayStation 2, and PlayStation 3

Wow! And Microsoft is truly a master of portable software - after all, once you write the software, it runs on Windows XP, Windows Vista and Windows 7! Maybe even on the server editions! No complaints there whatsoever!

Way to be relevant. I read that and couldn't get my brain beyond "We got BOTH kinds [of music]. Country AN' Western!"

Re:May I be the first to say:

[ozphx]

Sony isn't preventing anyone from publishing "Stupid Badgers" which is identical to lemmings in all aspects except for a white stripe on their ass.

Some pretty seriously odd logic goes into claiming that you need a right to republish someone elses ideas, because you can't come up with your own. Stagnating? Recreating someone elses shit over and over is stagnating. Go come up with something new.

Shit, next you'll be arguing that people should have a right to rape other peoples ideas with shitty fandom scripts.... Harry Potter and The Fourteen Inch Furry - now coming to a cinema near you to enrich our culture with the drivel of some entitled bastard who can't come up with his own characters.

And false pretences? Go fuck yourself. They paid good money for Psygnosis. They bought the entire damn thing in a private business deal, which did not consider your butthurt fanboy emotions.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Pofy]

"How does it benefit anyone except the guy selling it?"

You mean it is not a benefit to the public to be able to get it?

Re:May I be the first to say:

[Kijori]

No, it's doing exactly the opposite of what was intended. To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights. Not to enrich the author, but to encourage publishing.

Here something was published, a new something (based on an old something) and copyright is being used to deprive the public of it. Copyright should never be used to reduce the amount of works available to the public.

Copyright law is just busted. If it said "right to profit" they'd let the guy publish and sue for his profits.

That said though, a large part of the C&D is very likely the trademark - which they do (legally) need to pursue.

Your comment is full of contradictions.

You say that copyright grants monopoly rights, then say that they shouldn't ever prevent publishing. How can you have a monopoly where everyone can enter the market?
You say that copyright should encourage publishing but shouldn't enrich the author. How should publishing be encouraged without enriching the author?

You say that copyright grants monopoly rights and should encourage publishing. This copyright is the reason that Sony is still actively developing Lemmings games for multiple platforms. It is clearly encouraging publishing and granting a monopoly - the two things you say copyrights are meant to do - but you then say it's doing the opposite of what was intended.

Re:May I be the first to say:

[WNight]

Your comment is full of contradictions.

No, you just didn't read carefully.

You say that copyright grants monopoly rights, then say that they shouldn't ever prevent publishing.

To encourage publishing, copyright grants monopoly rights.

Yes, it does. That's a fact. It grants monopoly rights. But its purpose is to encourage publishing. The monopoly thing is just the first thing they came up with hundreds of years ago, in a time rife with monarchies handing out monopolies on everything from printing to the western hemisphere.

So when the method (monopolies) prevents publishing the law as written is in conflict with its purpose.

How can you have a monopoly where everyone can enter the market?

I didn't say you could, but you could have a publishing encouragement system without monopolies.

You say that copyright should encourage publishing but shouldn't enrich the author. How should publishing be encouraged without enriching the author?

No, I said that wasn't its purpose. The wording wasn't "to reward authors ..." it was "to enrich the public domain ...".

But since you asked, use now as an example. We don't directly reward you. We give you a monopoly and let you exploit it yourself.

One system would simply be to enrich the author. Taxpayer-funded grants. The Star Wars Kid would just get a check from the government without hassling about right or anyone having to pay to download.

There are many ideas. Few are as bad as letting someone use public media to base something off of and then retain absolute control of that for over a century.

Lemmings

[sopssa]

Sony still sells Lemmings across various platforms. He had to see this coming.

Besides directly calling it Lemmings was even more stupid move. Sony has to defend the Lemmings name too, and if the port is low quality it hurts the whole Lemmings brand.

Re:Lemmings

[Hognoxious]

if the port is low quality it hurts the whole Lemmings brand.

It wasn't up to Sony's standards; no rootkit.

Re:Lemmings

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. This is one case where i actually stick-up for a case of C&D. This is plain and simple copying of a still-very-current brand.
If he never foresaw this, then "clueless" is quite appropriate here.
He tried to put another persons product on an appstore, one itself that has rules against it in general.
And doesn't the appstore on Apple force payment? Or have they allowed for free apps to be uploaded?

And since i haven't read below your comment yet, i will predict the future posts:
waah sony are evil
sony sux
SCREW YOU SONY
SONY ARE COPYRIGHT TROLLS
Intelligent reply rated troll
Intelligent child reply rated troll
Fanboy trolling
PRACE BETS NOW. I miss Banzai...

Re:Lemmings

[ciderVisor]

And doesn't the appstore on Apple force payment? Or have they allowed for free apps to be uploaded?

There are a bazillion free apps in the Apple AppStore.

Re:Lemmings

[commodore64_love]

I too agree with Sony's decision. It's their game and he stole it, so naturally they will protect their copy right and Intellectual property.

On the other hand I enjoy bucking authority, so I'd probably upload the Lemmings game to the net, just like I did with the original game back in the 80s. Copyright is supposed to enrich our culture (by promoting profit for inventors/artists), not to lock it up behind a wall where few can access it. (Like Disney's Song of the South which near-nobody ever gets to see.)

Re:Lemmings

[mdwh2]

Agreed. Another issue unique to this case is the control that Apple have over applications released for Iphones - what if Sony were okay with this unofficial port, but also did their own official port, and then their port got rejected due to being a duplicate? Given that Apple have control over who can release the port, in this case I don't blame Sony taking action.

(Unfortunately this risk also applies to open source software - whilst unofficial ports are of course allowed, for the Iphone, Apple could make it so that someone else is the only one allowed to release their version, whilst a port from the original developer is blocked. I'm not sure if there are any open source licences that get round this, by disallowing ports to such locked down platforms...)

Re:Lemmings

[KDR_11k]

TBH I think Apple would get itself into legal hot water then, I think the DMCA only applies to services that can't actively screen all their content before publishing it, Apple clearly screens apps before approving them.

What's the difference between a lemming and lawyer

[Errol backfiring]

What's the difference between a lemming and lawyer?

A lemming is less short-sighted: he must at least be able to follow another lemming.

Poor guy...

[fewnorms]

Linking to his poor server twice in as many days. The slashdot hordes make their presence felt yet again!

More on topic though, very honestly, what did he expect submitting it to the Apple and Android app stores? That Sony would just let that happen? Then again, with all the copies already downloaded (did anyone actually get to download it?) it'll be very hard for Sony to prevent this from spreading...

Re:Poor guy...

[Anonymous Coward]

Kill Switch

Re:Poor guy...

[delinear]

I think that only works with Android for apps within the market, and certainly it was never approved for the Apple market so anyone who has it installed would have done so on a jailbroken set - again I don't think the kill switch works in this scenario (otherwise Apple could render jailbreaking moot by just killing any app that's not in the app store).

anonymous

[Anonymous Coward]

allowing 36 hours to remove it instead of 48 hours would have shown at least a little bit of humor...

"Lemmings is a common word"

[erroneus]

Sorry Sony, if anyone is willing to contribute money for a legal offensive, let me be the first to offer my $20 to $100. Their position seems to ride on a trademark of a common word. I don't know for certain about this in Europe, but in the U.S. common words aren't eligible for trademark. Microsoft knows this too well as it was close to losing its trademark over Windows before it settled with what is now known as "Linspire." (Great story if anyone doesn't know about it already.)

Sony needs to die in a fire.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[twidarkling]

No, their claim rests on the fact that they published the Lemmings games, or licenced out the ability to publish them, and this is a port of one such licenced product. The trademark is within that context of video games. Even if they couldn't trademark it within that narrow context, that still leaves the first part of "he's created a port of a licenced product." The trademark infringement is a separate part of it.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Anonymous Coward]

Trademark is not necessarily the problem here. It's more brand protection I think.
I do agree about the fire thing tough.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, their claim rests on the fact that they published the Lemmings games, or licenced out the ability to publish them, and this is a port of one such licenced product. The trademark is within that context of video games. Even if they couldn't trademark it within that narrow context, that still leaves the first part of "he's created a port of a licenced product." The trademark infringement is a separate part of it.

Can't you argue that making a port of a licensed product is within the DMCA, lawfully enabling you to play your game on recent hardware?

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[beelsebob]

Not if you then try and sell it to a shit load of people in a shop, no.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[CarpetShark]

Microsoft knows this too well as it was close to losing its trademark over Windows before it settled with what is now known as "Linspire."

Do tell. I've always seen it as Lindows getting beat senseless by a huge corporation. I mean, Lindows changed its name. Microsoft didn't seem to do much at all. Even if they gave Lindows money, it probably made little to them.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[SharpFang]

And even if you strike down trademark on the common word "Lemmings" (very doable if expensive), there's still the matter of all the artwork he ripped straight from the original. It's definitely non-trivial, and the answer how he managed to port it all in such a short time is that he copied the artwork and levels verbatim, porting only game engine but retaining (pirating) original game data.

One could say he could continue by releasing his ports stripped of all said data, but with some extraction tool, and allow people with legal PC copies of Lemmings to extract the game assets and use them with the engine. Like Doom for Amiga - you still had to purchase the PC original for the .WAD file - actual content of the game, while the (platform-specific) game engine was purely 3rd party without ID Software involvement or license.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Vectormatic]

Perhaps for your own use and enjoyment, but making a port (copy of original gameplay) and then putting it in apps-stores? how is that not a trademark/copyright violation? If sony owns the rights to lemmings, they alone should be allowed to port it to the iphone for common distribution.

Now i realize in this case it kind of sucks since the intrepid geeky developer acting alone and (at least partially) out of passion and fanaticism for games/programming gets beaten back by the big soul-sucking mega-corp, but this works both ways, these laws also prevent sony from taken this guys' original games and shamelessly putting them on the PSP without paying him.

From a geek/nerd point of view, the whole '36 hours to port to several platforms' action was cool and all, but in all other aspects, pretty stupid, especially if the guy knew he was gonna violate sony's rights

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Raumkraut]

Microsoft use the "Windows" trademark for their operating system, and they claimed "Lindows" was similar enough to cause confusion in the market. I believe Microsoft were correct in this belief.
Lindows, however, counter-claimed that; within the IT industry the term "window(s)" was a generic term, used well before and apart from Microsoft's usage of it as a product name. I believe also that Lindows were correct in this belief.

The two sides were then looking at the trademark dispute being decided in court, where there was the very real possibility that Microsoft's "Windows" trademark would be found invalid. So Microsoft offered Lindows a big chunk of change if they changed their name and dropped the case.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[TheRaven64]

Yup, you could argue that. And if you distributed the port code and required people to extract the artwork from their own copy of Lemmings, you could probably get away with it. If, on the other hand, you distribute all of the original levels and sprites, then you shouldn't be surprised when the owner of the copyright on all of these things complains. Compare this game, for example, with Pingus. In Pingus, the gameplay is similar, but the levels and other artwork are all original.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[stealth_finger]

I don't know for certain about this in Europe, but in the U.S. common words aren't eligible for trademark.

Tell that to Tim Langdell (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/the-edge-of-reason). He seems to think he has exclusive rights to the word 'Edge'. Sued an indie and got their game off the istore. And is tring to go after EA for Mirrors edge.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[adamofgreyskull]

If you're throwing money away, never to see it again, perhaps you could send some my way? Look at this screenshot, posted in the original 36-hour port story. I would love to see him argue that his use of the word "Lemmings" was not intended to infringe on their trademark. He didn't set up a dry-cleaners and call it "Lemmings", he did a direct port of "their" game and has tried to publish it to the iPhone app store. What did he think was going to happen?

Also...seriously...how often do you use "lemmings" in everyday conversation? I honestly can't remember the last time I used it in the context of referring to the animal, or in the context of describing herd mentality. (Sheep fit much better once you know the truth about lemmings). In fact the last time I even heard the word "lemming" (outside of the context of the video-game) was on the show QI.

What I find most amusing is that he states:

DISCLAIMER: "iPhone" and "iPod Touch" are registered trademarks of Apple, Inc.

as if Apple are going to try and sue him for mentioning their products, yet all the while he flagrantly copies/reproduces SCEE's IP.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Anonymous Coward]

And even if you strike down trademark on the common word "Lemmings" (very doable if expensive),

Heh. Don't be so sure about that - the fact that something is a common word doesn't mean it can't be a trademark, too. Or why do you think we've still got things like Windows and Apple computers?

Truth is that a trademark, barring things like the registrant letting it fall into disuse etc., confusing similitary with an existing mark etc., can only be invalidated if it's already a common term in the field you're applying for the trademark in. So if you've developed a new car with improved steering, you can't call that "Steering Wheel(tm) technology" and then go after everyone else who uses the term "steering wheel", but that's only because the term "steering wheel" is already commonly used in the field.

"Lemmings" is not a term that is commonly used in the field of computer games, so it's a solid mark. Don't count on being able to get it invalidated, even with enough money.

Like Doom for Amiga - you still had to purchase the PC original for the .WAD file - actual content of the game, while the (platform-specific) game engine was purely 3rd party without ID Software involvement or license.

Actually, all Amiga DOOM ports were (ultimately) based on id's engine, which was released as open source in 1997 and re-released under the GPL in 1999.

This was intentional on id's part, too: they *wanted* people to port the engine and keep it up to date so that they could continue selling the actual game (i.e., the WADs). Sony could arguably do something similar, but the choice is up to them: even if it'd make good business sense, you can't force them to.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[CarpetShark]

That's what I thought. So MS essentially used its fortune to bribe a small company into letting them continue to avoid trademark law at everyone else's expense. Doesn't seem like a victory for Lindows to me.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Steve Max]

Well, if someone made a port of Halo (using the same name, which also happens to be a common word) for the PS3, I'm sure Microsoft would kill them in court. Notice that people CAN legally play Lemmings on recent hardware, so availability isn't an issue and the brand isn't dead.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[SharpFang]

>Heh. Don't be so sure about that - the fact that something is a common word doesn't mean it can't be a trademark, too. Or why do you think we've still got things like Windows and Apple computers?

Because trademarks are given out by retards. No, a trademark can't be a common word, except the process of granting one is cheap, quick, easy and dirty (and invalid trademarks are granted left and right) and the process of challenging it is long, expensive and usually beyond reach of small fishes.

Please recall the Windows vs Lindows case. Microsoft lost it, because Windows is a common word. Except it lost only in the US and it would lose it only in english-speaking countries because "Windows" is not a common word in other languages. So Lindows was renamed to Linspire, to be able to continue everywhere - but only after that matter was settled, and it didn't have to pay a penny to Microsoft for "using a similar name".

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Rogerborg]

Doom is a common word. So is quake, and civilisation. Half life is a common scientific phrase.

But when they are used as the name of a computer game, they become distinctive in the context of computer games.

Do you really think you could release computer games called Doom, Quake, Civilisation, and Half Life, without being accused (correctly) of trying to "pass off" your work as being related to the original, simply because the words are common? Really? Trademarks Do Not Work That Way.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to unfortunately agree. The porting part was interesting, but submitting it to the app store was pretty much a violation of the trademark, copyright, and violation of the ToS for the appstore (you can only submit stuff you own the rights to.)

That said, making a inspired game with different assets (you can keep the original music if you re-create it yourself, the original lemming used royalty-free/public-domain music) you could get away with a lemmings-like game.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish someone would "beat me senseless" by giving me a huge sum of money.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[VGPowerlord]

Please recall the Windows vs Lindows case. Microsoft lost it, because Windows is a common word. Except it lost only in the US and it would lose it only in english-speaking countries because "Windows" is not a common word in other languages. So Lindows was renamed to Linspire, to be able to continue everywhere - but only after that matter was settled, and it didn't have to pay a penny to Microsoft for "using a similar name".

Actually, it's more because "Windows" is a common term in the category it was registered in (computer software). As far as I'm aware, Microsoft was never granted a trademark on "Windows", only on "Microsoft Windows".

I'd really love to watch someone try to prove that "Lemmings" is a common term in the computer software/video games category without referring to the game series itself.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[SharpFang]

d really love to watch someone try to prove that "Lemmings" is a common term in the computer software/video games category without referring to the game series itself.

But of course it is!

This is how you call all the newly graduated students who start their career by getting jobs at EA, Ubisoft, and other game-making sweatshops hoping to make a name for themselves to advance to "greener pastures" that way.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[WNight]

If he created a port, from scratch (including graphics) he would be able to distribute it - except for the name.

All they control here is the name and the graphics he copied. And maps if those are included.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[spire3661]

Wouldnt 'plagiarizing' be a better term than 'pirating'?

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[BikeHelmet]

Also...seriously...how often do you use "lemmings" in everyday conversation?

For me?... probably 5-10 times per year.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[twidarkling]

I think you're not familiar with what a "port" really is in gaming. It's taking the assets from one version, and using it on another system. If he's creating it from scratch, it's not a port. Since the entire issue is the use of assets (art and maps), if he recreated them, it's not a port, and it's not a problem.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[WNight]

I agree. I had thought you (and the submission) were misusing the term - I didn't know he actually had source to an old version.

I'd thought he'd written more of an emulator and had merely released it with the original art/levels.

Re:"Lemmings is a common word"

[SharpFang]

Plagiarizing is when your work bears illusion of being original - when you try to pass someone's work as your original own. If he changed the name for the game, and marketed it as something different than Lemmings, it would be plagiarizing. But it's THE Lemmings, not a different game, not another Lemmings clone, not even penguins running the same levels. This is a copy as faithful to original as possible.

So what did he expect.. ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You create a copy of a game and release it via official platforms, and now you find it strange that the right holder objects ?

Let me create a iPhone version of the original Mario Brothers (even older then Lemmings) and see what Nintendo does..

Re:So what did he expect.. ?

[delinear]

Much as I welcome any opportunity to highlight what a generally crappy corporation Sony is, and how little regard it has for its customers, I have to say there can't be anyone who didn't see this coming. But then if the point of the process was to get a little self promotion going then he's achieved that, he can comply with the cease and desist and for the sake of 36 hours of his time he's got the kind of publicity big companies pay big agencies big monies to attract, so depending on his motivation, maybe he fully expected this outcome but for him it's still a win.

And of course, once the code is in the wild it pretty much doesn't matter that it's removed from the original source, Sony's lawyers might be busy playing Whac-a-mole for years to come.

Re:So what did he expect.. ?

[Mathinker]

> if the point of the process was to get a little self promotion

He really didn't plan very well about the server load, then, did he?

His score: Mobile technologies: +3; Web technologies: -5

Re:So what did he expect.. ?

[chill]

And of course, once the code is in the wild it pretty much doesn't matter that it's removed from the original source, Sony's lawyers might be busy playing Whac-a-mole for years to come.

And they have every legal right to.

Whac-A-Mole was invented in 1971 by Aaron Fechter of Creative Engineering, Inc. [citation needed] Fechter designed the first Whac-a-Mole and was persuaded to sell it outright to a carnival operator who, in turn, sold it to Bob's Space Racers. Fechter did not patent the invention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whac-A-Mole

Re:So what did he expect.. ?

[phantomfive]

And of course, once the code is in the wild it pretty much doesn't matter that it's removed from the original source, Sony's lawyers might be busy playing Whack-a-mole for years to come.

And of course, they are happy to do so. They bill hourly, after all

only infringing if...

[MoFoQ]

I thought it was only infringing if they used (copied) art/words/code/etc. but not game play.

if they didn't use the original artwork and it was fresh code....they could use "Lemmini" as the name (or perhaps "Tribe Lemmini"...a play on the scientific name)

Same reason why you can have so many different jewel puzzle games.

Re:only infringing if...

[Sowelu]

Yeah...he kind of copied the trademark, and all the art wholesale. He walked right into this one, and the law is pretty squarely not on his side (which is exactly the way I feel it should be).

Hands Up

[Triv]

Hands up if you saw this as happening the minute you read the original story a few days ago.

Re:Hands Up

[TheThiefMaster]

Obvious to you too huh?

Re:Hands Up

[atheistmonk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzeqwhNTDk

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

He used the trademarked name and copyrighted graphics. He wanted to sell it in official app stores. What else was going to happen?

As much as I dislike Sony for this step, I have no pity for the developer. Fan games are dead. Don't touch them or you will get sued and your time and effort will be wasted.

There's a similar story every other month on slashdot. By now it should be common knowledge that you don't talk about IP of big corps and don't try to generate free publicity for them. Just don't.

Re:Hands Up

[L4t3r4lu5]

s/story/headline;

Re:Hands Up

[Yvanhoe]

Such a think is actually legal in progressive countries like Scandinavian countries : reverse engineering and porting to an unsupported platform is legal and is an exception to several laws. Sony does not provide an alternative way of playing Lemmings for Palm, therefore, it can not claim that this represents a loss. If Sony were to make an official port, then yes, a cease and desist would be lawful.

But yeah, we are all used of the balance of rights like they are in Corporate America so yes, we saw that coming.

Re:Hands Up

[Sowelu]

Legally allowing porting to an unsupported platform sounds kind of dangerous. Let's say company A releases a game on the XBox 360 three months before they release it on PC. During the intervening period, is it "unsupported" on the PC? Portal was not available on the Mac for a couple-three years, but as of a few weeks back, it is now. Was it "unsupported" in the meantime, and could people have legally cloned it, ripped off all the assets, and distributed it for free? I don't even think this is a slippery slope. It's something that directly follows.

Re:Hands Up

[Chrisq]

Hands up if you saw this as happening the minute you read the original story a few days ago.

Now put your hand down if you work for Sony.

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if you try to sell the result it isn't.

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

"Legally allowing porting to an unsupported platform sounds kind of dangerous. Let's say company A releases a game on the XBox 360 three months before they release it on PC."

It makes it dangerous, Aye. But in the opposite direction more so that where you think it's going.

Company A creates Cool Game on the 360 3 months before they release it on the PC.

Company B somehow manages to completely independently (not a hack) recreate the game on the PC first.

Company A now releases Cool Game on the PC and now sues Company B for damages.

This kind of porting being legal is mostly useful for older games where it's a pretty safe bet the original company isn't going to be porting it themselves. It would be harder for Company A to say "oh we were going to do that all along!" if 20 years goes by and they sit on it, then 1 month after someone does something they suddenly release a half assed version of their own just to claim "damages".

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgzeqwhNTDk

"This video contains content from EMI. It is no longer available in your country."

Fucking GEMA motherfuckers, fuck.

Re:Hands Up

[koiransuklaa]

I'm willing to bet that doing what he did is extremely clearly illegal in every Scandinavian country. He used original artwork, apparently copied the game mechanics to a T and even used the same name.

The "port theory" falls flat when you think of a situation where apps are used as differentiators between platforms: What if iPhone had been hugely succesful because they included Lemmings with their OS -- would it have been ok for Palm to rip them off and do the same thing?

This isn't about "corporate America", it's about copyright and trademark law as it is applied pretty much everywhere in the world. Could you (or the people who think you are Insightful) please explain how this could be legal in Scandinavia?

Re:Hands Up

[nmg196]

You seem to miss the fact that he submitted it to an App Store! That's totally illegal in all countries which recognize copyright - even Scandinavian countries (where it might be permitted for personal use). You also don't take into account the fact that Sony might be intending to release it for that platform and that's the entire point of copyright - to allow you to do that without another company doing it before you and taking all your revenue.

Re:Hands Up

[bjomape]

Porting may be legal, but of course reselling your port without authorization, is not legal. Otherwise you could just resell standard Windows application, claiming that they are your port to Linux/WINE.

Re:Hands Up

[Yvanhoe]

I did not see it was submitted to an App Store, yeah, that move was pretty stupid...

By the way, I disagree on the point of copyright. The point of copyright is (was?) to help give a financial incentive to creative and cultural productions and to help the dissemination of cultural works, not to protect anyone's "reserved" revenue. Lemmings has been released two decades ago. Porting it is shown to be a straightforward 36-hours work that is not done probably for political or revenue reasons. Having it ported to as many platform as possible should be seen like a masterwork novel being translated in as many languages as possible. People preventing it by using their copyrights in order to preserve their revenues are a blatant proof that copyright sometimes work opposite to its original intent and needs a lot of revision.

Re:Hands Up

[hedwards]

Indeed, as generous as iD software is with their games, they won't let anybody screw around with the install files. I'm not sure why exactly, but I suspect that they're concerned with anything that might go wrong harming their reputation. In this case it's a matter of money. I wasn't following things closely enough, so apparently he was including the graphics and levels rather than requiring the user to get those from somewhere else. That's pretty much always crossing a line at least in the US.

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a think is actually legal in progressive countries like Scandinavian countries : reverse engineering and porting to an unsupported platform is legal and is an exception to several laws.

Are there limitations on this? For example, it'd make more sense in terms of balancing the rights of the people against the rights of the IP owner if the port still required the data files from the original commercial product rather than being a complete, standalone, free version. So in the case, something like ScummVM or Frotz would be legal, but a completely free port of Maniac Mansion or Zork wouldn't be okay.

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Legally allowing porting to an unsupported platform sounds kind of dangerous. Let's say company A releases a game on the XBox 360 three months before they release it on PC. During the intervening period, is it "unsupported" on the PC? Portal was not available on the Mac for a couple-three years, but as of a few weeks back, it is now. Was it "unsupported" in the meantime, and could people have legally cloned it, ripped off all the assets, and distributed it for free?

I don't even think this is a slippery slope. It's something that directly follows.

Ur reading the first post wrong, he only says that if you f.ex own Lemmings for xbox, u should be allowed to play it any way you want, if needed you modify to play on the computer. This does not in any way state that it is okey for anyone without a legal copy to obtain that port, as it would not be legal for them to get a pirated xbox copy either in the first place..

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Such a think is actually legal in progressive countries like Scandinavian countries : reverse engineering and porting to an unsupported platform

So, several countries who's cultural contributions to the world are a rounding error vs the United States and elsewhere has much more liberal allowances for stealing other's work. Damn, let me give you a round of applause, Jackass. Or you could actually get off of your high horse and look at it from our perspective. We export more intellectual property than anyone else by far. We'd prefer not to get it stolen from us. If you don't like what we produce then just make your own. Thank you.

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

To be fair, given that he ported the game to iOS, it's not like he had any other option if he wanted to make it widely available.

Re:Hands Up

[RJFerret]

Yes and as soon as I was able to access his site later that night I downloaded...oh wait, nevermind, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Re:Hands Up

[Anonymous Coward]

that's the entire point of copyright - to allow you to do that without another company doing it before you and taking all your revenue.

That's not the point of copyright at all. That's the mechanism to achieve a much more important goal.

Re:What's the difference between a lemming and law

[Psaakyrn]

Your point makes no sense, especially if we're talking about the game lemmings.

1) Lemmings do NOT follow each other. They move blindly, period.
2) Lawyers do seem to follow each other, or at least follow where the money is.

It's sony's own fault

[fearlezz]

They forgot to rootkit the original release.

Re:It's sony's own fault

[Anonymous Coward]

OK How about this : SONY would have been OK with the port, except he didn't leave a way to arbitrarily remove parts of it once customers had acquired them.
Fortunately, there's Pingus for any kind of "Lemmings" fix anyone needs.
While it seems clear that SONY has a legitimate claim in this circumstance, the crap they've pulled previously is not absolved by this case.
SONY doesn't belong in an open market.

Sony also make phones

[Colin Smith]

Which compete with palm and apple.

So. no real surprise.
 

Eh, it is a PORT

[SmallFurryCreature]

Look at what he produced, it is a straight port of the game. Everything is the same.

There is no WAY this would fly especially as the Lemmings games are still sold for various platforms commercially. SOME companies TOLERATE old material being used freely but that is only if they don't see any future potential in it.

Lemmings still has potential.

Now you could start a discussion about copyright reform and such, but for now, making a blatant PORT (this is far further then a copy of the idea, it is the same idea) is illegal.

And Sony was nice enough about it, they have given him 48 hours to clean the stuff up and are not even pressuring him to destroy all the distrubuted copies. Basically they are saying, "Well we don't like it but if you don't do it anymore we won't hold you responsible for the damages caused so far".

Frankly, if I were him I would thank Sony on his bare knees. For a stunt he should NEVER have distributed the ports and for a "software should be free" he should never have signed his name.

You CAN make a Ufo: Enemy unknown game is you wished, you could even use enemies with the same capabilties (I doubt the makers would want a lawsuit over the *cough* Alien *cough* that impregnates your soldiers only for another *cough* Alien *cough* to burst out from them to go to court.) but a direct port? Nope.

Nice project kid, great way to get your name out there. Now take the extremely nice offer of Sony to clean it all up.

Re:What's the difference between a lemming and law

[Z00L00K]

A lawyer that smells blood is like a vampire or leech.

A lemming doesn't care about blood.

Sony: Like kids on the playground

[pinkushun]

From the C&D letter:

Sony Computer Entertainment Europe and its subsidiary Psygnosis (collectively "SCEE") have published or licensed "Lemmings" games...

Lemmings was developed by DMA Design, and published by Psygnosis:

The end of Psygnosis came when, in 1999, Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE) completely absorbed the company. Psygnosis' head office in Liverpool and studios in Stroud, Camden and Leeds were rebranded as Sony Studio Liverpool, Stroud, Camden and Leeds, with other studios being closed.

[ref]

I hate how they abuse their ownership over 'their' IP.

CAPTCHA: HOARDERS - hanging on to IP that wasn't even ours originally while we refuse to publish the titles

Re:Sony: Like kids on the playground

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, they bought the company who rightfully owned the IP, so now *they* own the IP. There is nothing complicated, illogical, immoral or suprising about this, so why do you bring it up? I guess you're buzz-word karma whoring but I don't think the Slashdot groupthink is going to back you up today.

Re:Sony: Like kids on the playground

[FatAlb3rt]

Whose computer are you on? You didn't actually build it, so it ain't yours.

Re:Sony: Like kids on the playground

[VGPowerlord]

CAPTCHA: HOARDERS - hanging on to IP that wasn't even ours originally while we refuse to publish the titles

There's are versions of Lemmings for the PSP and PS3 on the PSN app store right now.

In other words, they do publish it, but only for their own consoles.

New versions of Lemmings became a system exclusive title as soon as Sony bought Psygnosis.

Re:Sony: Like kids on the playground

[pinkushun]

Good views. Guess I just got excited that there might have been a *nix build too :)

Re:Sony: Like kids on the playground

[Anonymous Coward]

There's are versions of Lemmings for the PSP and PS3 on the PSN app store right now.

In other words, they do publish it, but only for their own consoles.

New versions of Lemmings became a system exclusive title as soon as Sony bought Psygnosis.

They also did this with Q-Bert, which totally pisses me off. Q-Bert and Lemmings are two of my favorite games, yet I can't play them because I hate Sony and refuse to buy their gaming systems.

It would not be so bad if they actually created the game in the first place, but they did not.

What are the damages?

[DrScotsman]

Serious question, what damages are they suffering? For each platform that Sony are not currently selling Lemmings on or planning to sell Lemmings on, surely there are no damages whatsoever?

Bear in mind European courts do not hand out punitive damages anywhere near as much as US courts do.

Re:What are the damages?

[Rogerborg]

The value of their trademark is being diluted. If these ports crash, or contain rootkits, or brick your handset, that harms Sony. They enjoy the right to be protected from that possibility.

They also enjoy the right to bring their own ports to those platforms at a time of their choosing. What makes you think they're not "planning" to do so?

The punitive damages in this case don't have to be huge, they just need to be large enough to punish the wilful infringement that's occurred here.

For once, I'm entirely with Sony. They've been quite restrained in their actions, but if they choose to bitch slap the developer into the poor house, I'll cheer them on, and anyone who produces (or "plans" to produce) anything themselves should too.

Re:What are the damages?

[hedwards]

Damn straight skippy. They're concerned that people will think that they have to use third parties to crash, brick and spy on you. That's something that they're perfectly capable of doing on their own, thank you very much.

Re:What are the damages?

[DrScotsman]

The punitive damages in this case don't have to be huge, they just need to be large enough to punish the wilful infringement that's occurred here.

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't mean European courts award amounts of punitive damages, I meant they are heavily against any punitive damages and they are only awarded in exceptional circumstances (if that). They believe punishment should only be held to the standards of criminal courts.

The value of their trademark is being diluted. If these ports crash, or contain rootkits, or brick your handset, that harms Sony. They enjoy the right to be protected from that possibility.

So assuming the ports don't crash, contain rootkits or brick your handset, Sony weren't planning to release for those platforms, and we're in a jurisdiction without punitive damages, what would Sony's damages be?

I'm not saying I think Sony's in the wrong, however I do want to know what their actual losses are.

Re:What are the damages?

[DrScotsman]

Bah, that should have been "low amounts of punitive damages".

Re:What are the damages?

[VGPowerlord]

So assuming the ports don't crash, contain rootkits or brick your handset, Sony weren't planning to release for those platforms, and we're in a jurisdiction without punitive damages, what would Sony's damages be?

I'm not saying I think Sony's in the wrong, however I do want to know what their actual losses are.

Their losses are the money you didn't have to spend on a PSP or PS3 to buy the versions they do currently publish.

Re:What are the damages?

[DrScotsman]

Their losses are the money you didn't have to spend on a PSP or PS3 to buy the versions they do currently publish.

That's sort of a good point, but you can only count people who downloaded the port and would have bought a PSP/PS3 if the port didn't exist, otherwise it fails the but-for test and isn't a loss (remember no punitive damages). What you're suggesting is counting each download as a lost sale - something many Slashdotters continuously complain about with respect to anti-piracy statistics.

So the actual figure is probably something like the cost of the PSPs/PS3s not bought times the probability a downloader would have bought a PSP/PS3 if the port didn't exist. How big is the resulting number?

Re:What are the damages?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say I own an iPhone and a PSP. I can either buy Sony's official version of Lemmings for the PSP, or get the unlicensed copy on the iPhone for less (or free). Which would I get?

Your reasoning would also let me port, eg Zelda, complete with Nintendo's graphics and sound, on the PC, and then release it for free, because after all, Nintendo don't release Zelda on the PC, so there's no loss, right? What are the odds that someone would own both a Wii and PC, after all?

Game and software developers would go out of business as development costs skyrocket from the requirement to port every piece of software to every possible hardware platform.

Stupid move for Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone did the work for them, a better move would be to pay him, get the games and sell them. (Assuming he'd agree, which I think would be a good move.) Sony is still licensing lemmings -- I have it on my Nokia phone as a Java game. So why not sell it for other platforms?

Re:Stupid move for Sony

[Narishma]

Why would they sell the games on the competitors' platforms when they can and already do it on their own platforms?

Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[bronney]

Can I has the serial?

Re:Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe there's an .ipa floating around on that place we do not speak of.

Re:Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[dzfoo]

Australia or Canada?

      -dZ.

Re:Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[nmg196]

Your spelling is appalling - it's "Can I haz the serial?"

Re:Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[bronney]

For give me, I are Chiner.

Re:Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[bronney]

Canada please.

Re:Hurry!! Any links to the iPhone copy?

[stillnotelf]

Your grammar is even worse - it's "I can haz serial?", on a picture of a cat nosing at a bowl of milk and cereal.

Fuck Sony

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't purchase Sony products anymore. Currently because of this:
"This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment. It is no longer available in your country."

Once they stop this DRM shit they will find another way to shoot themselves in the foot, they always have.
Fuck Sony, I don't need their shitty products.

Re:Fuck Sony

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I just received a sound system from them as a present. For its price range, it had plenty of features, and good sound quality. Not shitty at all.

Re:Fuck Sony

[tickticker]

So someone gave you a present and then proceeded to tell you how much it was? Classy.

Re:Fuck Sony

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

No, but I was told it was "cheap", and it doesn't sound "cheap".

Re:Fuck Sony

[iainl]

Here, have a PS3. Now, because I am classy, you've precisely zero clue how much one costs, right?

Re:Fuck Sony

[delinear]

I dare say their hardware isn't too bad, but their practices towards their paying customers and their bullying tactics to reshape the industry and nations' laws to help further feather their own nest are sufficient for me to not want to give them any more of my money. I'm sure blood diamonds are nice and shiny, but I still wouldn't knowingly buy one.

Sony is in the right, here.

[flimflammer]

As much as I want to call Sony the villain here, they really aren't.

The person who ported it took everything from the original game and released it on a newer platform. That is like someone taking Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario bros and porting it over with all the same graphics, sounds, and design.

They're protecting their property from theft, here. Had he used his own art, sounds, etc, with the same gameplay then Sony wouldn't really have a leg to stand on, but he basically stole everything from the original and ported it over. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. He shouldn't have assumed that he could take the assets without asking.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[devent]

But only because the law is broken. Lemmings was first released in 1991, that's almost 20 years ego. Mario was first released 1981, that's 31 years ego. You should have copyright for 20 years at the outmost maximum. In fact, since we have now the Internet as the fastest delivery platform, the monopoly grand should be much less then 20 years. In the I.T. industry 20 years is like 60 years (or more) in the traditional industry. The copyright in this industry should be much much shorter.

The real villain here is the congress of the USA which is protecting the monopolies and steal from the public domain.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Lostlander]

When will you IP trolls learn that Copyright Infringement and Theft are not equal. Theft requires that you are depriving the first party of something by acquiring it in an unlawful manner. You see the first part can never be satisfied in regards to software and text (excluding physical media) as you do not remove their source when you make a copy. Unless of course you decide to hack their servers and delete all their copies when you make yours.

You can't steal an idea just like you can't kill one it lives in the mind and it's value should be determined in the same way there can be a price for the impartment of an idea but there can't reasonably be a price for each use of that idea once it has been shared that would be like charging people for thinking. Unless of course you live in the U.S. and know how to play the copyright office.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Anonymous Coward]

I reluctantly agree, except Sony had nothing to do with the original creation of the game. They only absorbed the rights through a series of mergers and acquisitions. Sonic and Mario are direct properties of their respective companies. I don't know enough about who created Sonic the Hedgehog (be it an individual or a committee), but the original creator of Mario is now a big-shot within Nintendo.

Unfortunately, as copyright law stands, the above distinction makes no difference. It galls me a corporation can send a C&D for a creation that for all practical purposes had no hand in its creation, but there it is.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's not a lost sale for Sony! They lost _nothing_ here, so what's there to protect?!

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Theoboley]

2010-1981 =/= 31... its 29. Yes I'm Being pedantic.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Anonymous Coward]

OK Copyright Infringement and Theft are different but are they morally different? One deprives you of a single item, not the means of production or distribution (The means to make money from a product). The other deprives you of the means to make profit from a product as it becomes freely available. I could definitely see how business would look at copyright infringement as mush worse than theft.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[flimflammer]

You're arguing semantics here. Bonus points for calling me an IP troll.

My personal belief in regard to the author taking all the game assets (artwork, sound effects, what have you) is that it is morally and legally wrong. Label it what you will: Theft or Copyright Infringement. You're detracting from the point of my post to stress this stupid argument.

What this person did was completely wrong, and he should have realized what he was treading into before he started.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[flimflammer]

The same argument can be made about emulators and roms for out of print games. It's at Sony's discretion where Lemmings gets ported to. The real problem here is Sony has been porting the game to various platforms. It's not like it has been dead IP sitting on the cutting room floor for the past 20 years.

There's a lot to consider. The author should have done the correct thing by asking for a noncommercial license. If they said no then he should have ported it with his own name, graphics and sound effects. It could be a spiritual port of Lemmings.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Ant P.]

The person who ported it took everything from the original game and released it on a newer platform. That is like someone taking Sonic the Hedgehog or Mario bros and porting it over with all the same graphics, sounds, and design.

You might have had a point with Nintendo, but Sega has never -- as far back as I can remember -- attacked its own fanbase like this. They turn a blind eye to ports (probably because they can't do it right themselves); most of the "collection" discs they put out on newer consoles are actually a shiny frontend around Gens.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/534416

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[Narishma]

They lose money from the people who play this on their iPhone when they could have sold them a PSP or PS3.

Re:Sony is in the right, here.

[jim_v2000]

The "it's not theft, it's copyright infringement!" is often the only argument that anti-IP people have in these discussions.

loophole

[Anonymous Coward]

couldn't they get "hacked" and have it "leaked" to some well known torrent sites?

Re:loophole

[Chrisq]

couldn't they get "hacked" and have it "leaked" to some well known torrent sites?

Unfortunately they would be responsible even if they were hacked.

Re:loophole

[delinear]

They specifically made it a condition of the cease and desist that, if he complied, they wouldn't pursue him over any copies that had already been distributed. They can always go after the torrent uploaders, that's worked out really well in putting a stop to distribution in the past.

my point of view (developer)

[ardiri]

nice to get slashdotted twice in a week - the website still seems to be up this time around.

since i am on vacation (in egypt) for two weeks - i had to simply withdraw the submission and downloads from the application catalogs and own website, since sony gave a 48 hour window, i can deal with it in more detail when i am back from vacation. as for the intellectual property, no original code was uses (in fact, the palm os version was my own implementation) the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game. even the levels are redesigned in the event that they are not workable with one player mode and the limitations of the palm os platform

IANAL - but since no original files are used, in fact everything is re-created without reference to the original source code, the only infringing rights here are the use of the name "Lemmings". there have been a number of copyright cases dealing with the look and feel - so it can go either way, intellectual property rights come down to if a jury believes there is confusion between the original and the remake.

i will try to open discussions with SCEE (Sony Entertainment) about getting an official license for the game, in fact, we were looking for the original license holders back in 2001 when we did the palm os versions - but it was in flux between Take Two Interactive, Sony and no-one knew their ass from a hole in the ground. the good news is now SCEE are claiming ownership, so we can now talk to them - and we have proof of concepts made, so if they play nice, this title will officially come to these platforms, if not - then you can start saying how evil they are.

lets see how the discussions go!

Re:my point of view (developer)

[kiddygrinder]

if sony own the name lemmings (that's *if*) then they very likely own the copyright original EGA graphics. sony have shut down every lemmings clone that has used the original files or name and left alone every clone that has not. they also released new lemmings games on psp recently so it's not abandonware, How exactly are sony the bad guys here?

Re:my point of view (developer)

[ardiri]

every lemmings clone that has used the original files or name and left alone every clone that has not.

we have NOT used the original files, in fact - if you read the blog, you will see how we actually generated the levels using bitmaps and text files for configuration, all built without the original lemmings DAT files (yes, you can use them - but we did not). right now, it comes down to the Lemmings trademark with video games and the look for feel issue.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[orkysoft]

the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game.

Oh, and the original, copyrighted, artwork...

Re:my point of view (developer)

[snap2grid]

As I posted yesterday, I was part of the team who created Lemmings in the first place. A minor member, to be sure, but I was there. What bothers me most about these efforts to convert games is not so much the use of the original graphics and certainly not the fact that it's been ported, but the respect that we don't seem to get. I didn't see any mention of credit for Mike Dailly, who invented the idea, or Russel Kaye who wrote the PC version from which you took the EGA graphics, or Dave Jones who coded the Amiga original, or Gary Timmons who animated the characters, or Scott Johnson who drew background graphics or... well you get the idea. Intellectual property be damned; did you get in touch with anyone to ask if they were cool with it? (I once had the experience of reading a rip of the Hired Guns manual which I wrote, with a huge list of credits to all the guy's cracker buddies, but not one mention of anyone who'd spent two years of their lives on the game itself.) The sad thing is, if you'd asked, I know they'd have been cool with it. (And if you had, then I apologise)

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Rogerborg]

Word to the wise: your first words to SCEE should be "Sorry", followed by "Thank you".

It sounds like you think you didn't really do anything wrong. Uh, no. No, sir. You are guilty as original sin.

SCEE could have bitch-slapped you from here to breakfast, and they really should have done so in order to protect their trademark. Sure, all you have to do is to change the name and the graphics slightly to be fine, but you chose not to do so. As they noted, you chose wilfully to infringe on their trademarks (name, distinctive images) and their copyrights (the EGA graphics).

Don't get me wrong: as hobbyist game developer myself, I admire what you've done and I wish you the best of luck in getting it licensed. But as an ex-professional game developer, I can assure you that I won't view SCEE as being in the least bit evil for defending their rights.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[koiransuklaa]

as orkysoft says, this comment directly conflicts your earlier one. If you use the original "EGA" graphics files, even modified, it's a pretty clear copright violation.

You can't claim with a straight face that you didn't use the original files when your copy looks exactly like the original.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[ledow]

The relevant rule is ASK FIRST, though, as always. The rights holders may be separated (i.e. one owns the graphics, one owns the name, one owns the historical versions of the software, one owns a certain port, one owns the sound, etc.) and impossible to trace - that doesn't give you the right to use anything at all. "Look and feel" is only relevant to similar but non-identical works, in general. You say yourself that you used the original EGA graphics - even if this meant you printed them out on paper, then traced the same pixels onto graph paper and then "digitised" them to pixel-values in your head, it's still a large, gaping legal hole to fall through. Check out the history on certain typefaces. Otherwise, I could scan in a photo, print it out enlarged on graph paper, hand-digitise it by guessing colour values and if I end up with a pixel-by-pixel identical file claim that it's now "my" copyright / right to distribute and not the original photographer's.

You were using the original works as reference, and your works are virtually pixel-for-pixel identical to the original graphics. You *definitely* infringed on any trademarks/brands/etc on the name Lemmings (would it have been difficult to call it something like "Gophers" or similar?) - that's clear-cut "passing-off" on its own. Someone owns the name. Someone owns the graphics. Someone owns each piece of that software/concept, and you have *no* idea who that was. Sometimes those things revert back to the original artists after a while, sometimes they stay with the company forever, sometimes they got lost in a legal limbo and nobody's quite sure who owns them.

It doesn't give you the right to basically rip them off. I appreciate that the original project was fun, entertaining, a good proof-of-concept, etc. but you went *too* close to the wire - calling the damn thing Lemmings and referring to it as that at all times (to be honest, I assumed you were part of the original development team / some sort of official coder when I first saw the article yesterday, and at least one person who posted a comment on here actually WAS), using substantially identical graphics that by your own admission are derived from the original data files (however that may have happened), and then trying to distribute your work (maybe for a fee, maybe not, I don't know).

All you had to do was call it a "Lemmings-clone", make the graphics yourself (come on - Lemmings was EGA resolution with about 5-10 pixel high graphics - you could do that in MS Paint), and then nobody would have cared. You really have no defence here and I'd be surprised if, now, anyone wants to negotiate with you at all in terms of licensing. If you'd asked *FIRST* they might have. Now they know it's possibly popular, and they have damning evidence against you, they'll be setting their licensing fees for you at the top end of the scale - if you can port Lemmings in 36 hours, they can do it in a lot less and take you to the cleaners too.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[nmg196]

> no original files are used, in fact everything is re-created without reference to the original source code,

I don't know where you are, but in Europe that's irrelevant. It's not the source code that's copyrighted, it's the game itself (most software doesn't even ship with the source code - so source code it totally irrelevant when talking about software copyright). It's the design, function, and concept that's copyrighted in Europe and I'm pretty sure the same is true in most other countries that recognize IP and copyright. Do you think that if I wrote Call of Duty from scratch, or re-recorded a popular chart hit without paying royalties to the original publisher that it would somehow be legal?

Personally, I think you should have spoken to Sony in the first place instead of just submitting it as your own app as it's rather naive to think you'd get away with just submitting your own copy as I think it's likely that Sony might have been interested in talking to you - you've save them a lot of work.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Anonymous Coward]

since i am on vacation (in egypt) for two weeks ... I'll be right over to rip off your house.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[ShakaUVM]

>>the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game

Well, then.

I'm certain you'll be fine!

Re:my point of view (developer)

[nedlohs]

Obviously you can't use a trademarked name.

Obviously you can't just take their artwork and redistribute it.

Hopefully you aren't wealthy enough for them to be able to tell you are, otherwsie have fun paying out all of it to sony for wilfull infringment.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[tacroy]

Az, With all the publicity it should be fairly easy for you to find someone to make original art for you (in fact, contact me if you need some help with that) and then the only thing you need to do is get a "lemmingish" name. They can not copyright game mechanics, only the art and code, and they can trademark the actual name. At that point, with original art and a non-trademarked name you are free to actually sell this game (or give it away free)

Re:my point of view (developer)

[tiggertaebo]

While you come across as a reasonable guy who not doubt had good intentions trying to put the onus on SCEE to "play nice" as you put it doesn't really wash. After all the responsibility was on you to "play nice" and establish permission to use the name etc. first before you submitted the game to the app stores. FWIW I think you might have had a better chance of getting permission had you asked before you took so to speak.

Saying that you tried back in 2001 doesn't really work either since for a kick off that was 9 years ago and even if you weren't sure who owned it there surely was never a doubt that somebody did. It's like milk in a fridge, just because you aren't sure who it belongs to doesn't mean its OK to use it!

remember: manners are free but lawyers are expensive!

Re:my point of view (developer)

[daid303]

First let me thank you then. For helping in creating one of the longest living games in history so far. And one of the most frustrating ones.

And let me point out that not all porters work like that, if you look at the Wii port of Jump 'n Bump (which was opensourced) http://wiibrew.org/wiki/Jump_'n_Bump then you find a list of everyone who worked on it in the credits, from the original creators to the final wii port (which is based on the linux SDL port)

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Anonymous Coward]

Check out the history on certain typefaces. Otherwise, I could scan in a photo, print it out enlarged on graph paper, hand-digitise it by guessing colour values and if I end up with a pixel-by-pixel identical file claim that it's now "my" copyright / right to distribute and not the original photographer's.

The design of a typeface is not subject to copyright. The file containing a typeface is subject to copyright as a computer program, but the typeface itself is not.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Anonymous Coward]

You're going to lose this battle, and you're going to lose it hard.

In a company as big as Sony, there is at least one person who wants to give you permission to distribute this. And if you're lucky, you might even find that person. But, they're not going to be able to help you, because you're an insufferable douchebag. Your posts here on Slashdot are full of mealy weasel words and immature lies. You look like a three year old who throws a temper tantrum after he's caught with his hand in the cookie jar. If that's how you look on Slashdot, I can't imagine what kind of asshole you'll look like in front of anyone with business training. You might find the people at Sony who want to work with you, but they won't be able to, because you're a bitter dick.

Do you want a hint that will help you later in life? Stop being such a bitter dick. Everyone else in the whole world is a human being with wants and needs and desires, just like you. You can either go through life fighting to prove that your desires are right and everybody else is wrong, or you can learn to find and work with other people whose desires align with your own.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[mdwh2]

I didn't see any mention of credit for Mike Dailly, who invented the idea,

Ideas aren't invented (unless you have a patent for it), and presumably he was credited in the original game. Did the original lemmings credit any ideas borrowed from previous puzzle games? Perhaps it did, but this isn't something that's often done in the games industry. There's also the problem that the legal system doesn't really encourage people to be open about crediting others - even in cases where trademarks and graphics aren't be copied, but they got the idea for someone else, by writing "Thanks to X for this idea", you're painting a great big target that might as well say "Sue me please".

You're entirely right about the issue of graphics. Though speaking more generally - yes you're right, we should think about the original developers, but remember it's the company, now not even the original company, that owns the copyrights. Even if the original developers gave their permission - hell, even if they wrote their own unofficial port - it wouldn't be legal.

So getting in touch with the original developers surely wouldn't have made a difference? The only ones who could have given permission are Sony.

I think it would be great if we did live in a world where the original developers had more rights and control; and where people could credit others for ideas without giving up their rights to use those ideas or risk being sued. But we don't, and this guy isn't to blame for that.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[mdwh2]

It's the design, function, and concept that's copyrighted in Europe and I'm pretty sure the same is true in most other countries that recognize IP and copyright. Do you think that if I wrote Call of Duty from scratch, or re-recorded a popular chart hit without paying royalties to the original publisher that it would somehow be legal?

In the latter case, it's not merely a "concept". You're copying the music, which even in the form of the notes being played, is covered by copyrights. Certain aspects of games can also be copyrighted - e.g., level designs, storylines.

But you can't conclude from that that every "concept" is covered by a copyright. And a good thing too - otherwise loads of similar games (e.g., all the Doom/Quake clones, or consider how Worms used the idea of the earlier game Tanks) could never have happened.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[mdwh2]

the only thing that is definitely "used" is ... the original EGA graphics from the game.

IANAL - but since no original files are used

There seems to be a discrepency here.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[ardiri]

It doesn't give you the right to basically rip them off.

it wasn't a rip off - i was so close to even open sourcing the whole thing, the reason why i did not is because it uses a common library which i own to cross-build on multiple platforms. in fact, we even have a linux version, i just never booted a VM with linux during this 36 hour period, otherwise, it would be FIVE platforms. we did this as a dedication to the game, not to profit from it we were going to release it for free, no adverts, no catches, 100% free, as in beer. it is a tribute because SCEE never seems to license content outside of their own hardware, as we have seen in the past - 10 years ago we chased down who owned it, with no avail. it has gotten complex. since then, the only versions have been for the PSP or PS3. nice to see them locking the IP to their own platforms, rather than even being open about discussing other platforms (which technically compete with their own). who's best interest do they have?

some commenters here simply blurt out comments without thinking at times, and it has made slashdot degrade a lot over the last 10 years - it is a sad pity actually.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[phantomfive]

Wow, second pro-intellectual-property post in a row. When did that happen? Slashdot: opposed to copyright!*

*Except when it's with our stuff

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Anonymous Coward]

some commenters here simply blurt out comments without thinking at times, and it has made slashdot degrade a lot over the last 10 years - it is a sad pity actually.

Yeah, because if people don't mindlessly agree with you they must not be thinking.

If you wanted to make a tribute than could do what every other lemmings clone has done, recreate everything yourself. Artwork, music, levels and so on. Instead you got lazy and copied numerous things. Now you're getting bitch slapped for it. Stop whining, grow a pair and deal with it.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Anonymous Coward]

the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game.

Oh, and the original, copyrighted, artwork...

And the sound files.... In the blog it actually talks about the method they used to change the original audio files from 8khz to 22khz.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[snap2grid]

There's a difference between being inspired or borrowing ideas and wholesale copying. And I agree that Sony hold the copyrights.

My admitted tangent is that it's a sign of respect, giving a nod of the head or a tip of the hat to the original developers. Because although it's very tempting to "stick it to the Man" as some say, The Man in this case was just a handful of guys. We aren't/weren't just some anonymous faceless corporate drones without feelings. I'm delighted when people remember stuff I've worked twenty years later.

No, there's isn't a black and white viewpoint here. The port to iPhone doesn't materially affect me at all, but I still care about it.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[jim_v2000]

> the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game

You do realize that those are actually a big deal, right?

Re:my point of view (developer)

[kiddygrinder]

the code is the easy part, the graphics are the bit that's actually hard. I was skeptical that you hadn't ripped them off as soon as i saw that you'd done it in 36 hours

Re:my point of view (developer)

[ledow]

Would you like to explain how "open sourcing the whole thing" would help the person who owned the trademark that you infringed, or the artwork that you ripped off, in any way? It's like me saying "Yeah, I copied the whole graphics from Red Alert, but hey... the company hasn't been selling it lately and I was going to give it (and other rights on it) away to thousands of people who haven't paid for Red Alert anyway." Despite what you might read on abandonware sites, this is still a blatant copyright violation. You have *no* right to the imagery (recreated or not, because you admitted yourself you based it off the EGA data files), the name or anything else, so "open-sourcing" it will actually make it MORE illegal (passing off as not only an "official" product, but also then further giving those rights to other people perpetually - you're heading into fraud and all sorts because open source licences tend to state that YOU hold the copyright, when you clearly *don't* to some quite vital pieces of the software, as it was distributed.

You did something stupid, you don't understand copyright/trademark law (certainly not that in jurisdictions other than your own) and you got caught because you advertised it, shamelessly, on places like this. I don't think they'll bother to sue you, you're small-fry to them, but there's absolutely no reason why they couldn't win the case in just one speech.

Re:my point of view (developer)

[blake182]

the only thing that is definitely "used" is the name (Lemmings) and the original EGA graphics from the game

So it's a trademark and a copyright violation? I mean, no offense, but is anyone surprised that Sony freaked?

This reminds me of Office Space. "So you took a name and some art." "Right." "That wasn't yours." "Well, it became mine." "How is that not stealing?"

Re:my point of view (developer)

[Anonymous Coward]

it wasn't a rip off - i was so close to even open sourcing the whole thing

You blatantly copied and used the assets from the original work and now "were close to open sourcing the whole thing"? That boggles the mind... Do you really not understand that you have no right to distribute the graphics and sounds, let alone re-license them?

He can be double sued

[Anonymous Coward]

Now Sony can also sue him because he published the email's content. See the disclaimer on the bottom: "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. " :-)

Re:He can be double sued

[ledow]

Confidentiality is generally something that *two* parties have agreed to (i.e. one party and a confidante). Besides, legal communication is rarely sealed, except on a judge's explicit order, and this is a legal communication to the person who publicised it. You can't sue someone for them choosing to publish their own mail online, unless you have sent them something REALLY secret, obviously not to be disseminated and/or sent accidentally.

Otherwise you get ridiculous situation where someone sends you threatening letters, summons, etc. and then you can't show them to your lawyer.

Re:He can be double sued

[PsychoSlashDot]

Now Sony can also sue him because he published the email's content. See the disclaimer on the bottom: "This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. " :-)

That doesn't mean what you're suggesting it means. He is the entity that the contents et al were addressed to. He's making use of those contents by sharing them with others. That's entirely fine.

That idiotic boilerplate is pointlessly applied to tonnes of corporate e-mail under the crazy thought that if it's sent to the wrong person (as in the sender gets the address wrong), the incorrect recipient legally isn't allowed to act upon anything they've learned. I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty convinced that's utterly unenforceable regardless.

Coral Cache...for the 2nd time

[Qubit]

Here's the letter from Sony.

I gotta agree with what others have said: 2 slashdottings in such a short period of time seems almost cruel and unusual.

Note to the Editors: If by some chance you run another story linking to this guy's website, use Coral Cache. Please.

Re:Coral Cache...for the 2nd time

[1729]

Note to the Editors: If by some chance you run another story linking to this guy's website, use Coral Cache. Please.

No, please link to correct site. Coral Cache is blocked by many corporate web filters as a "proxy avoidance" site.

Re:Coral Cache...for the 2nd time

[RJFerret]

Here's the letter from Sony.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.

So much for that. (emphasis mine)

Re:Oh no!

[bami]

Ah come on, does none of the mods ever played lemmings, saw he screwed up and pressed the nuke button?

Turn into a parody

[kabdib]

Turn the new one into a parody; the lemmings are now Lawyers, Protected speech. Done.

Re:Turn into a parody

[bigdavex]

Turn the new one into a parody; the lemmings are now Lawyers, Protected speech. Done.

IANAL, but I don't think it works that way. If one were parodying the Lemmings game, then the elements of the Lemmmings game in the parody would be protected. Parodies don't get blanket protection from copyrights in general.

Sony properties and competing platforms

[acb]

The likelihood of Sony allowing a new port of Lemmings to non-Sony platforms is exactly the same as Nintendo allowing a Mario Bros. port to the iPhone or Xbox: exactly zero. The name, trademark and visual art of Lemmings is a valuable asset, and by making it exclusive to Sony hardware, Sony can claim a minor marketing advantage when the iPhone is eating their lunch. (Granted, few people would buy a PS3 for Lemmings these days, but exclusive ports to new Sony Ericsson phones or the next iteration of the PSP could be a selling point.) Even if someone at Sony wanted to play nice and allow some third-party developer to produce a Lemmings game for competing platforms, the legal department would quash that if they were doing their job.

However, the answer is simple. Games cannot be patented, and the infringing content is merely the name and the art/music. Rename the game, redraw all the graphics and replace the levels with new ones, and you're no longer taking off a Sony property. (Disclaimer: IANAL.)

Sony can suck my Pingus

[tepples]

[Before Portal officially came to Mac OS X,] could people have legally cloned it, ripped off all the assets, and distributed it for free? I don't even think this is a slippery slope.

The drop-off point is when someone copied the . Under U.S. law, a Portal clone using original assets would fall under the exclusion of game operation methods in 17 USC 102(b), as would Pingus, a Lemmings clone using original assets. The Tetris Company appears not to understand this.

Remember Great Giana Sisters?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone remember the original Great Giana Sisters? A complete rip on Super Mario Bros, but a different title and characters and all original code.

Within a few weeks of release the game was pulled from sale due to its blatant resemblance to Super Mario Bros and Nintendo lawyers breathing down the publisher's neck. I had a not-so-legit copy on my Amiga way back when (yeah I know, but that was along time ago!!). Fantastic game for sure, but then so was Mario.

More info at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Giana_Sisters

Re:Remember Great Giana Sisters?

[grumbel]

Ironically enough, the successor Giana Sisters DS is an official NintendoDS game. Not to be confused with Giana Sisters DS, which is a home brew port of the original (using a build-in C64 emulator and a few extra game specific hacks).

These days most companies don't really seem to care about other companies cloning their gameplay, as thats basically was everybody is doing anyway.

Re:Sony, Sony, Sony.

[Anonymous Coward]

etc etc and so on and so on...

Re:What's the difference between a lemming and law

[tapanitarvainen]

Lemmings do NOT follow each other. They move blindly, period.

I guess you've never seen a real lemming. They most certainly are not blind, nor do they move blindly in a metaphorical sense. They do not follow each other thoughtlessly either, however, so that part of your rebuttal was correct.

I knew it

[paxcoder]

*shakes head*
It's time for some law changing.

Re:What's the difference between a lemming and law

[Johann Lau]

yeah, that makes sense! I have another one:

what is the difference between a lemming and a lawyer?

a lemming has green hair and is just a bunch of pixels tall, while a lawyer very rarely has green hair, and isn't even measured in pixels!

Re:Oh no!

[TheRaven64]

Maybe they all played the PC version and only had internal speaker audio. In this version, you only got Bu-dududu, rather than 'Oh no! *pop*' when a lemming died.

More reasons not to have a phone with locked down

[Santzes]

More reasons not to have a phone with locked down software market. If some software gets pulled because of some retarded laws in USA, I'll just download it from somewhere else to my Android. With iPhone I get screwed also, even though I'm pretty much exactly on the other side of the planet.

Offer remains valid for 48 hours?

[Eraesr]

They send an e-mail and expect to be acted upon it within 48 hours? Wow, I'd feel truly fucked if I were out for a weekend enjoying the sun rather than checking my e-mail....

boooo, hisssss

[jsepeta]

Sony obviously doesn't care about competing entertainment platforms, even though if they made better content, it could be used on ANY platform

a very good C&D

[Peganthyrus]

I think Sony gets a couple of points for this one. That was an amazingly nice letter given the circumstances; it politely said "hey, um, we totally own the 'Lemmings' brand, and you knew it wasn't PD when you did this stunt. We could sue you into the ground. But we will not if you take it off the net."

By Neruos

[Anonymous Coward]

Where does "porting" something give someone copyright ownership? It doesn't and never will. The port wasn't one bit news worthy and yet, here it is on /dot.

why not thank the guy..

[greywire]

It seems Sony is well within their rights to go after this guy and bury the ports.

However, wouldn't it be much better for public relations, marketing, not to mention cheaper (not having to pay their lawyers), to just send him a check and say "hey thanks for making these ports! Please send us the source code and here's a check for your work".

I mean really. I'm sure the guy would be thrilled to get a few K for his time that he never expected to get, and Sony gets a few more ports to make a few $ off of. Everybody wins!

Re:why not thank the guy..

[Narishma]

Why would Sony want these ports? They are for platforms that directly compete with Sony's.

Re:why not thank the guy..

[greywire]

Really? You really think that lemmings on the iPhone or Palm Pre is going to in any way effect sales of Ericson Android phones? I don't think even Sony would think that.

This is just simply them not wanting anyone else having anything to do with their IP, period, whether it makes any kind of impact or not. Which they have every right to enforce. Doesn't mean its the best way to approach the situation...

Re:why not thank the guy..

[Narishma]

I was thinking about the PSP, not the phones.

Re:why not thank the guy..

[Anonymous Coward]

that's even worse...

Really? You really think that lemmings on the iPhone or Palm Pre is going to in any way effect sales of PSP's?.

there, fixed that for me... :)

Your username!

[Zancarius]

Off-topic, but your name is highly (and oddly) very applicable to this discussion. :)

you forgot to add...

[FingerSoup]

now GET OFF MY LAWN!!!!!!

So how is this a copyright offence?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how is this a copyright offence? If it's because it's lemmings code, then if you have a license for PC version of lemmings, then you have a license for this port version. If it's because it's an iPhone port, then where is sony's version? Without that, there is no loss and therefore no case to answer.

ONLY if the work falls out of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

ONLY if the work falls out of copyright does the public get enriched. Printed DOES NOT SUFFICE.

Re:ONLY if the work falls out of copyright

[BoberFett]

Wrong. The public is enriched by having seen the work. It is enriched further when it falls into the public domain, after the creator has had a chance to profit from his labors.

Re:ONLY if the work falls out of copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. The public is enriched by having seen the work. It is enriched further when it falls into the public domain, after a random company that has never created anything original has had a chance to profit from the long dead creator's labors.

TFTFY

Anonymous Coward

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one bothered that they published an e-mail with an explicit statement that the communication was confidential and intended solely for use of the individual or entity to whom it was addressed?

FTA

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify postmaster@scee.net
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been checked for all known viruses.
Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Limited
Registered Office: 10 Great Marlborough Street, London W1F 7LP, United Kingdom
Registered in England: 3277793

Re:Sony, Sony, Sony.

[longhairedgnome]

The christian Mods don't appreciate vonnegut ;_;

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

Even free software advocates turn blind eyes to their own illegal remakes. Oddly, for people so much about freedom, they don't mind another company's rights violated, but it's the GNU GPL so it's all "okay" and "fair game" for them.

I await the day where Hudson goes after all of these blatantly shameless Bomberman clones that even copy their exact Bomberman character's trademark design.