Slashdot Mirror


NAMCO Takes Down Student Pac-man Project

An anonymous reader writes "The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn. Apparently a bunch of students using MIT's educational Scratch programming language understand this. But not everyone else does. NAMCO Bandai sent a takedown notice to MIT because some kids had recreated Pac-man with Scratch. The NAMCO letter is pretty condescending as well, noting that it understands the educational purpose of Scratch, but 'part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others.'"

218 comments

  1. Play for free? by brainboyz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    1. Re:Play for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Look at the source of the page:

      "PAC-MAN's 30th Birthday! Doodle with PAC-MAN & ©1980 NAMCO BANDAI Games Inc."

      Perhaps Google actually worked with NAMCO?

    2. Re:Play for free? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder if Google got the same take down notice??

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Play for free? by cosm · · Score: 4, Interesting
      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    4. Re:Play for free? by loubs001 · · Score: 1

      I bet NAMCO would have loved to sue them. With Google's big fat wallets they're a mouthwatering target for lawyers. They'd probably win too. Imagine the settlement theyd get for all the millions and millions of people that played it. But no, There's no way Google would have made that without permission. They're not stupid. I expect they paid NAMCO a hefty sum for the right to make that. It shows how Google is willing to spend serious cash purely to show off how awesome they are. For all the great publicity it got them, I'd say it was well worth the investment.

    5. Re:Play for free? by Fluffeh · · Score: 4, Funny

      Makes me wonder if Google got the same take down notice??

      No, it probably went like this:

      Namco: I am big company! Hear me RAWR!
      Google: I eat companies like you for breakfast. HEAR ME RAWR!!
      Namco: *whimpers*
      Google: Yeah, that's right. Back away slowly little one, else Imma buy you and get EVIL on your ass.

      Okay, so it was probably done with more legal talk and less Rawrs, but that would have been the idea - or close to it.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    6. Re:Play for free? by OSDever · · Score: 1

      I laughed... That being said, I wonder how much it would hurt Google if they actually needed to buy Namco for some reason (warning: theoretical situation with no base in reality.) Namco's gotten pretty big since the Pac-Man days.

      --
      What is the airspeed of a fully laden swallow?
    7. Re:Play for free? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      No, they just licensed the trademark from Namco. Much easier all round.

    8. Re:Play for free? by BradleyAndersen · · Score: 1

      Google: Yeah, that's right. Back away slowly little one, else Imma buy you and get EVIL on yoh ass.

      There. Fixed that foh ya.

    9. Re:Play for free? by Restil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's also possible, that out of the blue, Google lawyers approach Namco, say they want to make a cool front-page gizmo that emulates a pacman game in light of the 30th anniversary, and works out a contract for the right to do it. Pacman being a classic, but old and relatively profit-less production at this point, probably allowed it for not much more than the name recognition, if that. Getting permission in advance is usually much easier, and besides, if pacman wasn't a realistic option, there are hundreds of other classic games that would work equally well for the educational experience, and certainly ONE of their companies would have allowed it.

      Of course, if this were only a project that stayed in the classroom, Namco likely would never of heard of it.

      -Restil

      --
      Play with my webcams and lights here
    10. Re:Play for free? by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      It was dumb of them to make the game start playing by default with sound enabled. I wonder how many calls they got in total.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Play for free? by FlyMysticalDJ · · Score: 1

      Wow, that woman sounds eerily like my grandmother.... I wonder....

    12. Re:Play for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a dumbass. People like that should not be allowed to own a computer or at least they should only be allowed to own a Mac or some other pseudo-computer.

    13. Re:Play for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Namco: Im a big company, I made an icon for a decade and possibly a generation
      MIT Pissant: I re-wrote logo and as an example to grade-school children, I teach them how to directly rip off a beloved commercial franchise
      Namco: WTF?

      shit lets teach freshmen how to totally duplicate McDonald's food in high school home-economics too

      or am I going to fast for your entitlement

    14. Re:Play for free? by fractoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You never made burgers or chips in Home Ec? You never made a spice rack or a dustpan in Manual Arts? You never wrote a version of Tetris or Space Invaders (or Pacman) when you were learning to program?

      We're monkeys. We learn by copying what others have done. When we fully understand what's already been done, we add our own little bit and then someone else copies us.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    15. Re:Play for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never made them exactly like a brand name at home no

      I may have made burgers, and I may have made a "eat dots maze game" but no I never made a big mac and pac man, then packaged it as educational material

    16. Re:Play for free? by Vastad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No please, don't say such cool things knowing it will never be true.

      Seriously, with Google's wallet, you could actually pay for a decent writer to rescue the farce that is Tekken. Don't get me wrong, I love the game as a fighter and it works quite nice as a Double Dragon style beat-em-up. But with those amazing cutscenes...it looked beautiful but they were re-donkey-lous.

      Nina is what...40? 50 years old now? But she's the sex symbol and so some cryogenic-hibernation handwavium keeps her in her 20s. Paul doesn't even have that excuse. He should be looking as dodgy as Dolph Lundgren by now. Weirdly, Heihachi makes sense. He's a centenarian by now. All the bad mojo or something.

      The various war gods they fight are just lame. It's approaching SNK territory. First was the Aztec-ish Ogre. Then Heihachi's dad with the ridiculous facial hair. Most recently some weird Egyptian beast made of ice that definitely suffered from SNK Boss Syndrome as well as SNK lameness.

      Ultimately it would be nice to hire some fresh creative non-Japanese brains to come in and sweep away the tropes and stereotypes that stained the latest release. Alisa and Lars were irritating and lazy additions to the roster, Lars being a decent re-hash of Heihachi karate (who'da'thunk the old man liked Swedish blondes). The robot-girl however was getting into Darkstalkers tongue-in-cheek territory which I can't tell is intentional or not.

    17. Re:Play for free? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Google 'Beef products inc' and 'Pink slime' before you even think about making exact copies of that shit.

      Then again you can just get pre-made frozen burger patties and get the same wholesome quality beef. / Sarc

      BTW don't get me wrong.

      I love good beef.

      Which makes me hate bad burgers even more.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    18. Re:Play for free? by Yvanhoe · · Score: 4, Informative
      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    19. Re:Play for free? by Eraesr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The whole thread that sprang from this post reeks of sadness. Look at all these nerds worship Google. Everyone just look at some AC's post a bit up the page. There's a copyright notification for NAMCO Bandai in the Google page. It makes it kind of obvious that Google licensed Pacman from NAMCO Bandai.

    20. Re:Play for free? by ciderbrew · · Score: 1, Insightful

      No please, don't say such cool things knowing it will never be true.

      Seriously, with Google's wallet, you could actually pay for a decent writer to rescue the farce that is Tekken.

      I think other games companies do pay a bit for good writers. Then some mid management arse wants to put his stamp on the idea. Followed by marketing at any level you care to pick from.
      Writers are good at writing. Standing your ground is another skill set.

      I could be talking about every business I’ve ever worked at regardless of idea/product. I can’t be sure. I can't stand my ground. Forget what I said.

    21. Re:Play for free? by DarkKnightRadick · · Score: 1

      yeah, the big mac wouldn't last long on a bookshelf.

      --
      "There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
    22. Re:Play for free? by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      "Hey Google. Heh, you old search giant! Did you know-"
      -"Sue us and we'll make this court thing cost you way more money than you could possible make from the Pac-Man IP."
      "I was just about to tell you it was going to be a hot day today, so you might want to keep an eye on the airconditioning for your servers... Hey it's this late already? Geez gotta pick up my kids from school."

      --
      Here be signatures
    23. Re:Play for free? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      also known as part of the reason big companies stay big is the number of lawyers (and quality thereof) they have
      Part of the reason that the TSCOG thing is taking so long is that they know that when it gets to the IBM case
      THEY ARE CARBON.

      CEO to Corp Legal Dept: prevent me from looking stupid in court (or even getting to court as such)

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    24. Re:Play for free? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Perhaps Google actually worked with NAMCO?

      They did; there was a writeup about it on Google itself.

      But in the vein of "IP", I want to educate them (yeah, I know, they're not reading this) about their assertion "part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others". NAMCO is the entity that needs to educate themselves. In the US at least, Pac Man is NOT their property! It's OUR property. It belongs to everyone. MAMCO merely has a limited time monopoly on its distribution.

      I hope MIT teaches this to their students as well, and doesn't let the dishonest claims by the entertainment industry that they own "their" works stand. Once you let a piece of art out of your head and into the real world, it's ours.

      The US Constitution is online at a lot of sites. Please read it some time. MIT is not in Japan, dudes.

    25. Re:Play for free? by AlanCramer · · Score: 1

      I liken your explanation to this... Google was being chased in a maze by four Namcos, until Google came across a Power Pellet, which then Google turned on the four Namcos, eating them.

    26. Re:Play for free? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We made pac-man for a class when I was in college. We implemented it in Scheme. It was a very useful project. It's sad to see copyright law standing, yet again, in the way of education. Maybe copyright law was intended to protect inventors and spur innovation, and maybe it once did, but that time has long since passed.

    27. Re:Play for free? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We learn by copying what others have done. When we fully understand what's already been done, we add our own little bit and then someone else copies us.

      With art as with science, "if I see farther than other men, it is because I stand on the shoulders of giants." I'm just glad patents don't last as long as copyrights, or technology would grind to a halt like art has. We've sold our culture to the money worshipers.

      I wish copyrights were as short as patents; if so, this would be a non-issue. Lessig was right when he argued before the SCOTUS. He just made the wrong argument (as he says himself in his book Creative Commons)

    28. Re:Play for free? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I thought NAMCO was an American company.

      >>>It's OUR property. It belongs to everyone. MAMCO merely has a limited time monopoly on its distribution.

      Excellent point. Also hasn't Pac-Man (the code/maze not the character) fallen into the public domain by now?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    29. Re:Play for free? by alexo · · Score: 1

      We're monkeys.

      Apes actually.

    30. Re:Play for free? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I thought NAMCO was an American company.

      Nope.

      Also hasn't Pac-Man (the code/maze not the character) fallen into the public domain by now?

      The copyright is valid until... probably another 70 years or so. The trademarks are forever.

    31. Re:Play for free? by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      You never made a spice rack or a dustpan in Manual Arts?

      I read that as "Martial Arts". Sounded like Mr. Miyagi was back in the teaching business.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    32. Re:Play for free? by xiong.chiamiov · · Score: 1

      You never made burgers or chips in Home Ec?

      Nope.

      You never made a spice rack or a dustpan in Manual Arts?

      Nah.

      You never wrote a version of Tetris or Space Invaders (or Pacman) when you were learning to program?

      Again, negatory.

    33. Re:Play for free? by Eraesr · · Score: 1

      rofl, I expected the above post to be rated "redundant", considering I was labeling Slashdot readers as nerds.

  2. Want more information? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Want more information? by Froboz23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Speaking of Google, I googled for user 124scratch, and found more of his evil deeds. If you thought NAMCO's response was bad, wait until Nintendo finds out that their beloved Donkey Kong has been reimplemented (a.k.a. pilfered!) Nintendo is on par with Disney for being protective about their copyrights.

      http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/124scratch/1217451

      It's buggy to be sure, but it has the foundations of a very good port. Which in this case, is a bad thing.

      I'll stick with Atari 2600 coding, where the graphics are so primitive that modern video game companies couldn't even recognize their game has been ported. Hopefully I'll have Crysis 2600 ready in time for Christmas.

      --
      Take off every Sig. For great justice.
  3. MIT just needs to make it a parody by Anarchduke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Say, have NAMCOman eat the developing brains of college students while being chased by the ghosts of creativity. Then NAMCOman can eat a copy of the DMCA and kill off the creative spirits one by one.

    --
    who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
    1. Re:MIT just needs to make it a parody by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      Hey, at least NAMCO didn't force the student to wear a big scarlet ©

    2. Re:MIT just needs to make it a parody by Mantrid42 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Reminds me of an old Penny Arcade comic.

    3. Re:MIT just needs to make it a parody by greggman · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you know how like copying pacman is a super creative activity and shutting it down is stifling creativity. ::rolleyes::

    4. Re:MIT just needs to make it a parody by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      How about somebody stifle Gman's super-creativity here with a troll mod? :3

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    5. Re:MIT just needs to make it a parody by greggman · · Score: 1

      Or you could open your mind and see that the entire thread is a troll.

      The students blatantly copied somebody else's work. In many circumstances that can get you expelled from school. Why are we supposed to have sympathy for them except that it's "evil corp" vs "innocent students"?

    6. Re:MIT just needs to make it a parody by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      The students blatantly copied somebody else's work. In many circumstances that can get you expelled from school. Why are we supposed to have sympathy for them except that it's "evil corp" vs "innocent students"?

      Oh no, oh gods you're right. My.. *sniffle* my compsci teacher taught us Pascal by assigning us to make Tic Tac Toe clones. I .. I never realized the damage this could cause to the inventors of the game.

      Those poor inventors of crosses and naughts. They.. They were just trying to feed their familes! *choke*sob*

      *ahem*, ok I'm better now. So, you're saying plagiarism, and they should be expelled. Is that right? Fine, quite right, so please demonstrate from whence they cribbed the code for NAMCO's Pac Man.

      ...

      Wait, so you're saying they didn't crib any code, they just did the same thing over again and it's still plagiarism?

      Right, that just means you need to be expelled for every book review you've ever turned in since, you know, someone else has reviewed that same book before you.

      Next case!

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  4. O'RLY by cosm · · Score: 2, Funny

    because some kids had recreated Pac-man from Scratch

    Perhaps if this was the sentence the NAMCO lawyer had read, oh wait, things would have gone down the same.

    part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others.'"

    And part of our collective foots should be up NAMCO's ass.

    --
    'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    1. Re:O'RLY by mangu · · Score: 1

      because some kids had recreated Pac-man from Scratch

      Perhaps if this was the sentence the NAMCO lawyer had read, oh wait, things would have gone down the same.

      Being lawyers, they should look at precedents to realize that "look and feel" isn't "intellectual property".

    2. Re:O'RLY by msauve · · Score: 1

      part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others.

      "Intellectual property?" I prefer the term "thought hoarding."

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    3. Re:O'RLY by tepples · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being lawyers, they should look at precedents to realize that "look and feel" isn't "intellectual property".

      Namco would rely on Atari v. Philips , a lawsuit over a Pac-Man clone that Atari (Namco's console licensee at the time) won. The difference between that and other look-and-feel cases you're thinking of (Apple v. Microsoft, Capcom v. Data East, and Lotus v. Borland) is that Pac-Man is an identifiable character, and identifiable characters have stronger copyright protection than elements whose form is dictated by function or by stereotype. One could replace Pac-Man and the ghost-monsters with original characters, like Nintendo did in one of the levels of WarioWare for Game Boy Advance, and have less of a chance of breaking copyright law.

      But talk this over with your lawyer before acting on it.

    4. Re:O'RLY by AngryNick · · Score: 1

      Well, my mom stood in line for an hour to buy the Atari 2600 version of Pacman when it came out...and it SUCKED, even by 1982 standards. Namco should consider allowing the Scratch project to continue if for no other reason but as retribution for ripping off thousands of kids for that crappy port.

  5. Bad news by copponex · · Score: 1

    If the empires of the past sought to control physical resources for their own gain, I don't think it takes too much imagination to see what the future holds for the information economy.

    Also, I'm looking forward to all of the sci-fi book recommendations. Can I get them on my Kindle?

    1. Re:Bad news by rich90usa · · Score: 1

      You could get them on your Kindle, sure, but Amazon retains the right to remotely remove books from your Kindle at any time.

    2. Re:Bad news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably. You might have a harder time keeping them there though. http://www.pcworld.com/article/168654/amazon_removes_ebooks_from_kindle_store_revokes_ownership.html

    3. Re:Bad news by Ant+P. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If the empires of the past had guarded their "intellectual" "property" so jealously as these money-grubbing little cunts, we'd all be shitting in open trenches today.

    4. Re:Bad news by ultranova · · Score: 1

      If the empires of the past had guarded their "intellectual" "property" so jealously as these money-grubbing little cunts, we'd all be shitting in open trenches today.

      No we wouldn't, because with bronze-making a closely guarded secret, only the richest could afford trenches to be dug.

      You would simply collect your shit to a big pile and dig in to stay warm at winter, hoping that you wouldn't be found and clubbed to death for stealing the idea from that Einstein fellow.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  6. what about the business majors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    why aren't they being taught to respect the rights of others (fair use, etc)? why aren't they being taught that they can't have an indefinite free lunch in a free market? why aren't they being taught that broken business models propped up by government do everyone a disservice?

    1. Re:what about the business majors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck. I am out of mod points.
      Mod up.

    2. Re:what about the business majors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Do Anonymous Cowards get mod points? Where are mine?

    3. Re:what about the business majors? by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because business is war, only restrained by law, and free of morals. Conventional morality is a liability in business.

      The goal of business is profit, and if we would shape its behavior that must be done by imposing fear of punishment as a deterrent acts which we sufficiently disapprove. People respond to fear even if they are amoral. Be ready to inflict pain upon those you would have behave themselves.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    4. Re:what about the business majors? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, you don't. It's part of the rules.

    5. Re:what about the business majors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. However, if this is the case, these people participating in this 'business' deserve neither respect nor obedience. I would also argue that their profits are being hurt because their financial incestuousness hurts the value of the currency itself...at least in the long run.

    6. Re:what about the business majors? by erroneus · · Score: 1

      ... fear of punishment has effectively been removed under the protection offered by corporate entities. "We were just doing our job" goes all the way to the top when it gets written into law that corporations must "serve the interests of the share holders" whatever that is interpreted to mean at any given moment. No one is responsible for their actions in a corporation.

    7. Re:what about the business majors? by jimmydevice · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Why has couchslug not been modded up Insightful? Mods?

    8. Re:what about the business majors? by icebraining · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Don't worry, I don't have any for months either.

    9. Re:what about the business majors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are Legion, Inc.

    10. Re:what about the business majors? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Do Anonymous Cowards get mod points? Where are mine?

      He meant:
      "I came to troll the discussion as an Anonymous Coward and moderate it as a user. And I'm all out of mod points!"

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    11. Re:what about the business majors? by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "However, if this is the case, these people participating in this 'business' deserve neither respect nor obedience. "

      If business wants "obedience" it should pay what the market will bear.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    12. Re:what about the business majors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rules and Laws can and will be abused, a fact that increases with the number of words in any legal text.
      The best is to take a reductionist approach: you want your patent so you can start a business before anyone stealing your idea?
      Ok I give you 2 years max, after that if you couldn't get it done, you don't deserve the patent.

      Without laws to limit business, businesses cannot use them to limit competition.

    13. Re:what about the business majors? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Then we need to implement and actually use penalties much stronger than fines that don't even cover profits including the corporate death penalty. Having the company forceably converted into a non-profit would not likely be considered in the interests of the shareholders.

      Then we need to figure out why the same public that wouldn't buy anything from a person who was convicted of fraud (and many would have nothing at all to do with a multiply convicted felon) would willingly do business with a 3 time loser like Microsoft.

      Personally, I think part of the penalty for corporate crime should be that their logo must be depicted behind bars for a number of years afterward. That should (especially) include their stock symbol. Perhaps their name should be replaced by a prisoner number. Would you buy an office suite from jailbird number 532?

    14. Re:what about the business majors? by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      Because business is war, only restrained by law or ability to bribe, and free of morals.

      FTFY

  7. Standing on the shoulders of giants. by WoollyMittens · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A vital part of human culture is that every generation of people can build upon the innovations of the previous. This is how we got from living in caves to reaching for the stars. Greedy corporations are systematically destroying this mechanism for their own personal gain. This must be stopped or our civilization will have no future. Lawrence Lessig dat a much better job at explaining this than I do: http://remix.lessig.org/

    1. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. If Pac-Man was 3 or 4 years old and still sold on store shelves I would have infinitely more understanding and sympathy for the IP owners.

      Over 20 years old, during which you had the opportunity to profit from your work, I have no sympathy at all. In fact, it goes from sympathy to loathing for all the reasons you outlined.

    2. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if it were still for sale - as a downloadable game for cell phones.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    3. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Imagine the consequences of Mozart suing Beethoven over the first 3 stanzas of Beethoven's First Piano Sonata.

      Or for that matter, if copyright had dissuaded Beethoven from creating his Ninth Symphony.

      Some of history's greatest pieces of music would never have been...

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    4. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Good thing corporations don't have any people like him doing research, programming, architectural design, or anything else creative within the company. It's just done by ghosts.

    5. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pac-Man is still a viable bit of IP for NAMCO. I can go into stores like Wal-Mart and buy their products.

      Oh sure, it's things like the PS2 game, but still, I think it's not beyond conception that they get value from their original work back in the 80s. Is that being negatively impacted by this game here? I don't know, and I doubt Namco can prove it either, but fortunately for them, the law doesn't require them to prove actual damages. All they need to do is point out how it's like their property, which...would seem pretty easy.

    6. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by tepples · · Score: 1

      Imagine the consequences of Mozart suing Beethoven over the first 3 stanzas of Beethoven's First Piano Sonata.

      Imagine George Harrison getting sued for a song he wrote because it matched the hook from a song that was already on the oldies station. Don't imagine; it happened.

      Or for that matter, if copyright had dissuaded Beethoven from creating his Ninth Symphony.

      Some of history's greatest pieces of music would never have been...

      I did the math in a past life.

    7. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by dissy · · Score: 1

      Some of history's greatest pieces of music would never have been...

      I would like to take this time to give a moment of silence for the multiple orders of magnitude more music that will never be...

      Oops, I just infringed on John Cage's copyright of silence :/

      Pretty ironic that Namcos lawyers most likely were infringing the same copyright, while writing the take down notice about MITs copyright infringement

    8. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      on consoles and PCs you can still buy it on various compilation games, down-loadable usually. I'm sure there is a "Namco Arcade Classics" for the wii though and I wonder if they have it(Pac-Man on NES) for sale on the virtual console too? Either way they shouldn't have DMCA'd MIT. I liked Namco... I hope the three creators of Pac-Man(not the company Namco itself) wouldn't have done this. I hate Human Greed :(

    9. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly. If Pac-Man was 3 or 4 years old and still sold on store shelves I would have infinitely more understanding and sympathy for the IP owners.

      Pac-Man is 30 years old and still on the shelves.

      Google shopping returns 8,000 hits for licensed Pac-Man games and related products.

      Namco sells $3000 full-sized replica Pac-Man Arcade Games for the family room.

    10. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the consequences of Mozart suing Beethoven over the first 3 stanzas of Beethoven's First Piano Sonata.

      Let's see...Mozart died in 1791. I imagine it would mean the dead had risen.

      Those would be some pretty bad consequences. It's a good thing it didn't happen.

    11. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by SuperDre · · Score: 0

      But there are some new Pacman games released the last years.. Also you HAVE to protect your IP/trademark, because if you don't you'll loose the IP/Trademark.. Also, go and think some stuff up yourself if you are so against these protection scheme's, see how difficult it is.. Also why would you need to use something you didn't think up yourself? Using Pacman as an educational example is ok, but publishing the result isn't.. why would you need to publish your 'homework'? and that's where the catch is, NAMCO doesn't mind if they use pacman as an example to learn how to create a game, but publishing that result is the problem...

    12. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greedy corporations also have employees with families that have bills to pay. While this pacman article seems pointless on NAMCO's side due to the context, if someone could copy what your business does and provide it for free, you wouldn't have much a of a business.

      Not everything can be free people. It is nice to share, but in the end it would halt economics.

    13. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Upholding intellectual property right doesn't seem fair unless your paying italian and greeks for the alphabet, arabs and indians for numbers.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    14. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by sorak · · Score: 1

      I just downloaded a demo of MsPacman from xbox marketplace, two weeks ago. I don't know if Pacman is available, however.

    15. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Exactly. If Pac-Man was 3 or 4 years old and still sold on store shelves I would have infinitely more understanding and sympathy for the IP owners.

      Has there actually ever been a time since the advent of the VCS when you could not get Pac-Man for a currently-shipping console? Inclusion in a classics compilation counts.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pac Man and variants ARE still for sale for:

      cell phones
      iphone/ipod
      Xbox 360
      Nintendo DS
      PC download
      etc, etc

      I'm totally in favour of learning programming by re-creating a game, but for fuck's sake, create different graphics and change the name. MIT = Genius Retards.

    17. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by EdIII · · Score: 1

      Inclusion in a classics compilation counts.

      Fair enough. It is still on the market, and I stand corrected by your post and a couple of others. However, by classics compilation, would Beethoven also apply? What about Wagner, Mozart, Bach, or Vivaldi?

      There is a point in which continuing to grant copyrights to IP holders ceases to benefit society. I would say Pac-Man after 30 years qualifies.

    18. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      It's just done by ghosts.

      SqueeeeaaaAAAA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA!! >:C

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    19. Re:Standing on the shoulders of giants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me a break. The kids making pacman on scratch are not making money of it.

  8. The lawyers must be bored! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So NAMCO told some college kids to take down a version of Pac-Man that they made. I'm pretty sure at this point they are not going to lose millions because these college students made there own version of Pac-Man.

  9. "concern" by Josh+Triplett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others

    Sounds like a good idea; they should learn to find intellectual property deeply concerning. These students already have, the hard way.

    1. Re:"concern" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      students: Thank you mister namco sir. We learned that you like to throw cease and desist letters at small guys rather than big evil companies. The message was read loud and clear. Your concern for future generations has touched us. We thank you again for this valuable lesson mister namco sir, it was most instructive.

      Cc it to the big cheeses at namco? Nah, just publish it.

  10. NAMCO stifling real world experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's in the title, but this is a perfect example of stifling the real world experience that these students gained from this project. after all, how else does work get done in the real world?

  11. Don't hate the company, hate the lawyers... by Kildjean · · Score: 3

    It is sad that one of the oldest gaming companies in the world has become so shortsighted as to punish a group of students using as inspiration one of the best games ever made, by a bunch of students that want to honor "Pac-Man" by recreating it on Scratch. Not to sell it but to learn. Shame on you Namco (and your lawyers), too bad non of your games now are worth even pirating otherwise i would wish that to you.

    --
    Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
    1. Re:Don't hate the company, hate the lawyers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of points: if it was just to learn they wouldn't have posted it on a web site where it could get a take down notice. It must have been for either people to play, or people to see it and say, "wow, you guys are great!". Either way, doing it for learning purposes does not require putting it on a public web site where it can get a take down notice. The other thing is that these students learned about how companies misuse take down notices because they (the companies) know that people don't have the money to throw around that it takes to fight them.

    2. Re:Don't hate the company, hate the lawyers... by lavagolemking · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see them try suing over something like that. What exactly would their "losses" be? Was the code copy/pasted, or, what it sounds like to me, written from "Scratch" (no pun intended)?

  12. I'm pretty sure NAMCO shouldn't be making waves. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Based on their stock chart, I'd say they are not long for this world.

  13. More information! by acomj · · Score: 5, Informative

    This page is a detailed history of Pac Man, including history and information on the different ghosts move algorithms and speed changes... I find it interesting... Read it while you can, its hosted on comcast.....

    http://home.comcast.net/~jpittman2/pacman/pacmandossier.html

  14. One down ... by StarDrifter · · Score: 3, Funny

    One down, about 1620 more to go.

  15. anon coward bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    yeah - shit most of us learned by writing stuff like tic-tac-toe - so who has the cpryt on that? this is so stupid - they should be happy that after sooooooooo many years that people still like the game. they should be giving him a job!

    1. Re:anon coward bitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I own the copyright on tic-tac-toe.

      Incidentally, have you written a tic-tac-toe clone? I ask purely out of curiousity.

  16. NAMCO is right and our system is WRONG. by Tei · · Score: 0

    NAMCO can have the laws is part, but because our current system is broken. Lets destroy it!

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  17. Wait... by Derosian · · Score: 1

    Is there a parallel here between seeing a piece of art and recreating it in a new medium. That new piece is like the old piece but created with your flair and in your medium. Isn't this exactly the same, just with programming?

    1. Re:Wait... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      If you're doing that you have to be mindful otherwise you could end up in trouble. A painting of a photo for instance, or vice versa, would almost certainly have problems, however it really depends on how it's done. L.H.O.O.Q is sort of the canonical example, as the minor changes make for a very distinct message rather than being a copy of the Mona Lisa.

    2. Re:Wait... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > L.H.O.O.Q is sort of the canonical example,

      I was going to scold you for not defining an obscure acronym... but... well you know...

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    3. Re:Wait... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      That can still be copyright infringement. A movie adaption of a book needs permission from the rights holders, and this is the same sort of thing.

  18. Do not see that as condescending by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    To me that did not sound condescending - think of it from the lawyers point of view, they were actually attempting to give what they saw as really good advice! I know it came off kind of arrogant but I don't think that's what they were going for.

    It's really true that part of an education is in fact realizing that some people have IP that they will vigorously defend, and that you need to perhaps think more about creating something truly original in order to avoid this issue.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Do not see that as condescending by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's really true that part of an education is in fact realizing that some people have IP that they will vigorously defend, and that you need to perhaps think more about creating something truly original in order to avoid this issue.

      Except of course that the true purpose of all the "intellectual property", as the mega-corps and their paid-for politicos envision it, is to prevent exactly that and to ensure that no innovation is possible without it "belonging" to one of the "gate keepers" of all future progress who are busily jockeying for the position in this aristocracy.

      And it is already nearly so since every thing ever invented or created always builds on the cumulative knowledge of all the discoveries and developments of the past and the recent past is nearly completely patented, copyrighted and locked down. Locked down forever - for all practical purposes from the point of view of a person living less then 100 years.

    2. Re:Do not see that as condescending by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Without patents, we wouldn't have a large portion of the innovation of today; with the current patent system gone amok, we won't have the innovation of tomorrow. Too many rights given to inventors (i.e. 100 year copyright terms) is bad; too few rights (you can't profit from your ideas because someone will just take it immediately) is just as bad.

    3. Re:Do not see that as condescending by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And it is already nearly so since every thing ever invented or created always builds on the cumulative knowledge of all the discoveries and developments of the past and the recent past is nearly completely patented, copyrighted and locked down. Locked down forever - for all practical purposes from the point of view of a person living less then 100 years.

      Let's see it from an evolutionary standpoint: societies that allow themselves to be shackled, bound, and immobilized by excessive red tape (including all this IP nonsense) will ultimately go the way of the dodo. I.e. they will become extinct, while other, more dynamic societies, will arise and prosper and replace those dinosaurs that our societies have become.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    4. Re:Do not see that as condescending by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without patents, we wouldn't have a large portion of the innovation of today;

      That is merely an assertion of the "intellectual property" would-be landlords, in fact it is easily disproved: progress existed long before patents, in fact patents were present for something like the last 1% of recorded human history. And before you start talking about how fast that last bit developed, that has nothing whatsoever to do with patents but with easy access to and free exchange of information between scientists and inventors, the very thing that is now being restricted, combined with a critical mass of population density and transportation capabilities. Patents were simply inconsequential, having accounted for only a tiny part of the industrial output of that period, not to mention the fact that some industrial powers (I am looking at you USA) developed precisely because they ignored patents claimed by their former bosses (Britain in this case).

    5. Re:Do not see that as condescending by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      It also has to do with some motivation other than "less beatings" when you come up with something novel.

      Look at the successes of a company like Stuller (jewelry business). Their operation is based around the premise that any employee who comes up with a way of saving the company money directly gets half of what the company saves for the first year. With that policy, they've become the single biggest wholesale supplier of findings and mountings, and one of the biggest for stones and finished jewelry. They were founded in 1970; 40 years to be the best in an industry from the founding date, largely because the concept that you, and only you, can be rewarded for your ideas is really novel the the last couple centuries.

      If I have no motivation to come up with an idea, I'm not going to, plain and simple. That's a simple fact, and is a significant portion of the reason people think about how to make their lives easier, then sell their goods via infomercial rather than keep it to themselves. The total elimination of patents would bring the economy to a standstill- just the same as the current nonsense is slowing down progress.

    6. Re:Do not see that as condescending by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also has to do with some motivation other than "less beatings" when you come up with something novel.

      Which, according to the True Believers in the "free market" religion, can only be an all-encompassing, boundless, unstoppable and never satiated greed that burns within one's belly like a fire ...

      Of course most scientific discoveries were made out of a desire to discover and understand, not even a single penny entering the equation at any time, other then to fund the research with. Most inventions were made because some difficulty or need annoyed the inventor, not because he wanted his thing featured at late night infomercials. In fact greed is a very poor motivator because it tends to lead to "inventions" whose only purpose is to somehow make money, irrespective if they actually work or have hidden side effects.

      Look at the successes of a company like Stuller (jewelry business). Their operation is based around the premise that any employee who comes up with a way of saving the company money directly gets half of what the company saves for the first year. With that policy, they've become the single biggest wholesale supplier of findings and mountings, and one of the biggest for stones and finished jewelry. They were founded in 1970; 40 years to be the best in an industry from the founding date, largely because the concept that you, and only you, can be rewarded for your ideas is really novel the the last couple centuries.

      Yes, lets consider this company which supplies utterly useless crap, "demand" for which is manufactured wholesale by attempting to brainwash the unsuspecting dupes that "jewelery" will somehow improve their self-esteem or if they do not get it, they will be seen as "lesser" by their peers. The term "parasites" comes to mind.

      If I have no motivation to come up with an idea, I'm not going to, plain and simple. That's a simple fact, and is a significant portion of the reason people think about how to make their lives easier, then sell their goods via infomercial rather than keep it to themselves. The total elimination of patents would bring the economy to a standstill- just the same as the current nonsense is slowing down progress.

      Given that you equate "motivation" with greed and the crap peddled on the late-night infomercials with "inventions" and "progress", further discussion is likely to be a waste of time.

    7. Re:Do not see that as condescending by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      Given that you equate "motivation" with greed and the crap peddled on the late-night infomercials with "inventions" and "progress", further discussion is likely to be a waste of time.

      Now, ignoramus, let me explain one thing, since you're obviously amazingly ignorant of the extent of infomercials: the footwear that doubles as a mop is obviously something that falls into your category of useless crap.

      But have you seen the rotary power saw with two blades, one rotating in each direction, that is infinitely safer for firefighters to use on a crashed car because it doesn't emit sparks?

      That thing is on infomercials.

    8. Re:Do not see that as condescending by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But have you seen the rotary power saw with two blades, one rotating in each direction, that is infinitely safer for firefighters to use on a crashed car because it doesn't emit sparks?

      Except, of course, the counter-rotating blades do nothing whatsoever for sparks as they are the result of friction that does not disappear magically because you got two, three or twenty blades (advanced saws use fluid coolants and lubricants for that) and fire-fighters use hydraulic-operated cutting jaws because they allow for precision cutting without exposing victims to flying bits of metal and rotating blades. Also, fire-departaments do not buy anything from infomercials. Ever. The target audience is the gullible public.

      Late-night infomercials were the traditional domain of con-men and scammers since the first day they were broadcast. In fact the only serious product I could imagine being sold there would be a stamp with which you could stamp your forehead so it could proclaim to the world "I am a homo-idiotus, a specimen of a TV-stupefied 'consumer' whose wits were stillborn and whose gullibility is infinite. I buy stuff from infomercials! No brain within." That way we could easily tell at a glance whose "opinions" to disregard before he opens his mouth.

      Come to think of it, the infomercial victim crowd is very likely composed of the same people who make all that email spam profitable. More of your kind of "innovation".

    9. Re:Do not see that as condescending by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      you need to perhaps think more about creating something truly original in order to avoid this issue.

      So, where does Pacman come into this then?

    10. Re:Do not see that as condescending by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      It's very hard to prove anything either way. Our data on the effects of patents and copyright is quite limited, and some recent articles have suggested that traditional economic motivations suck for creative and innovative thinking. Also, legal exclusivity isn't the only way to secure a return on investments.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    11. Re:Do not see that as condescending by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      in a nutshell...time to start that course in Mandarin?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    12. Re:Do not see that as condescending by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Yes, lets consider this company which supplies utterly useless crap, "demand" for which is manufactured wholesale by attempting to brainwash the unsuspecting dupes that "jewelery" will somehow improve their self-esteem or if they do not get it, they will be seen as "lesser" by their peers. The term "parasites" comes to mind.

      So your saying that people who buy jewelery cannot think for themselves? Apparently there is some massive conspiracy of jewelery retailers "brainwashing" people into buying their products? That's quite a patronising statement indeed.

      I just cannot understand your point of view - how are people selling jewelery "parasitic"? It's Jewelery, not homeopathy for god sake.How is jewelery wholesale any more parasitic than any other business model, or lone human being for that matter? We all rely on other life forms in one way or another, at their expense, to survive.

      The fact is humans see value in things they deem to be attractive. What we find attractive is merely a result of our genetics and our experiences. Art, clothing, furniture, cars, architecture, consumer electronics are all made with aesthetics at the heart of the design process because it *matters* to the consumer. The visual appearance of a product has mattered to mankind since the beginning of civilization (clothing, piercings, face paint and jewelery, oddly enough..) - in *every* civilization that has ever existed. It wasn't a big corporate "brainwashing" excercise then, and it isn't now. Jewelery is no different - it may not have any obvious function, but neither do the works of art we have taken great lengths to preserve for thousands of years. Aesthetics are at the heart of our culture, our humanity, and that isn't likely to change any time soon.

      Your comment truly baffles me.

    13. Re:Do not see that as condescending by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      BTW, that saw isn't just sold on infomercials. I know firefighters, and they have it on some of the trucks.

    14. Re:Do not see that as condescending by sorak · · Score: 1

      Like whom?

      To me, it seems like China is the best example of a society that is currently arising and prospering. This may be attributable to their disregard for IP, but it could also be for other reasons. They do have regard for the IP of Chinese businesses, but not of those of foreign countries. Either they succeed because of their lax IP, or they have to steal from other countries that are better at producing innovative ideas.

      Another possibility is that the reduced standard of living and the efficiency of living in an authoritarian society with little regard for human rights makes them a better competitor on the store shelf of wealthier nations. Of course the problem, if you want to look at it from a natural selection perspective (and I am not a biologist, or economist) is that you have to look at whether they are an evolutionarily stable strategy. You have a country with low consumer resources, and plenty of cheap labor, competing with a country that has the opposite. Of course they will succeed, as long as the rest of the world is wealthy enough to buy their products. But, as our manufacturing infrastructure corrodes, the administrative infrastructure propped upon it will also collapse; our status as the world's bankers, lawyers, and salesmen, will collapse, if the only thing we export is money. And the fact that 1/6 of our economy is now health-care costs, should also be seen as a red flag. Any of that spending that is not being exported to foreign countries should be seen as an example of the Broken Window fallacy at work.

      So, the question is, if the entire world were like China, would we have an economy? Would there be a market for anything more than food, and remnants of what was built when we had a healthy consumer market? I know, I'm getting completely off topic, but my point, if I have one, is that I see no reason to believe that IP will be the most important factor in the health of any economy.

    15. Re:Do not see that as condescending by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Your comment truly baffles me.

      I will make an (only one) exception in replying to an AC, further AC comments will be ignored as odds are that you are down-moderating me with your real account.

      Your confusion stems from conflating "aesthetics" with corporate activities. While it is true that people might find one thing or another "attractive" those perceptions have long since became subject to manipulation by the "fashion" industry, with the aim of "creating market" for disposable crap. Jewelery is in the same category, and has been worked by the con-men so thoroughly that you end up with nonsensical psychosis like "engagement rings" and "anniversary rings" etc. If only aesthetics was involved, the jewelery (and clothing) markets would not reach even 1% of their present size.

      Hence "parasitic" activities, since a tiny conceivable gain is visible for the "consumers" at a massive expense.

      It can also be put another way: a good indicator of "value" of something is the resale price of the said thing as measured immediately after purchase. For jewelery in the US the drop is frequently in 80% range.

    16. Re:Do not see that as condescending by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      you need to perhaps think more about creating something truly original in order to avoid this issue.

      There is no such thing as "truly original". All technology, science, and art is built on what has come before. Have a look at this journal. It is as "truly original" as you can get, except the opening and closing quotes, which in fact violate copyright. But the copyright violations are of a forty year old work that is a part of our culture and plays an integral, poetic part to the story.

      Just like Pac Man is a thirty year old work that is also part of our culture. Pac Man should not still be under copyright. THE LAW IS IN THE WRONG.

    17. Re:Do not see that as condescending by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That is merely an assertion of the "intellectual property" would-be landlords

      They're not landlords, they're tenants. They may "sublet" by licensing those patents, but humanity owns the intellectual property, and have leased it to them for a twenty year term. WE are the landlords. WE own the property.

      People forgot that with copyrights, and now nothing ever written in your lifetime will ever go back to you, the owner, in your lifetime. Don't let them do it with patents.

    18. Re:Do not see that as condescending by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Most inventions were made because some difficulty or need annoyed the inventor, not because he wanted his thing featured at late night infomercials.

      Who was it that said "necessity is the mother of invention"? I think that's backwards; Necessity is the father of invention, hard work is the mother.

      Given that you equate "motivation" with greed and the crap peddled on the late-night infomercials with "inventions" and "progress", further discussion is likely to be a waste of time.

      It's always a waste of time to argue with a religious fanatic, and the money worshipers are more fanatical than the Muslims.

  19. Rockstar did this pretty effectively by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 1

    http://kotaku.com/5315632/grand-theft-auto-and-pac+man-the-same

    The trick is, don't make it look so similar? Since calling out the similarities doesn't seem to be a problem..

  20. One leg to stand on by roguegramma · · Score: 1

    They are probably within their rights if the game is advertised as "pacman" because they will own a trademark to that. I don't know about the images of pacman; if they bothered to file these as a trademark too, they got a second leg to stand on.

    Just rename the game as "Pingus Hunt", replace the pacman with a penguin, and the monsters with Bill G's, and no one can complain about their project.

    --
    Hey don't blame me, IANAB
    1. Re:One leg to stand on by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Or just replace the pellets with cookies and call it Snack-Man.

  21. Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 0, Troll

    If the programmers in question had infringed on Linux copyrights and licensing, would /. be as quick to take their side?

    --
    I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    1. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, troll. If Tux the Linux penguin was trademarked, and they made a game involving Tux, nobody would give a damn. Shut up and quit trying to be an ass.

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    2. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by Mathonwy · · Score: 1

      I would argue yes, actually!

      Because maybe I'm projecting here, but I think that in the heart of most computer programmer nerds is the memory of how they started programming. So automatically the kid gets some slack, just because most us immediately think "haha, that reminds me of the time I tried to make _____ in BASIC, god my version sucked. Taught me to program though...."

      So while I have some trouble imagining a scenario where a budding programmer accidentally violates the GPL or something, I think at the very least that many slashdot readers would be more inclined to say "wow, smart cookie of a kid!" and kindly tell him/her what they did wrong, rather than send a threatening legal letter.

      Or at least that's how I hope it would go down?

    3. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'm trying to make a serious point. IP laws don't just protect big, greedy, lazy corporations. They also protect everything under the various GPLs, the FreeBSD license, etc. That's the reason that Microsoft can't take Linux kernel 2.6.xx and call it theirs, or use it in a way that its license does not permit. You can't destroy one entity's copyright rights without damaging them for everyone.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    4. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      Except Linux is OSS, so it's not possible to infringe its copyrights and licensing by studying or reimplementing it. So the question wouldn't exist.

    5. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      So automatically the kid gets some slack, just because most us immediately think "haha, that reminds me of the time I tried to make _____ in BASIC, god my version sucked. Taught me to program though...."

      I'd like to think that would have been okay. But, once you start posting this stuff on the web, rather than just enjoy it yourself, or among friends, you're inviting a C&D.

      So while I have some trouble imagining a scenario where a budding programmer accidentally violates the GPL or something,

      Yeah, I wasn't trying to think of an actual, specific situation, just a hypothetical reversal of the situation.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    6. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

      That's quite different from what you said before. Next time, make sure you're done foaming at the mouth before you post, ok?

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    7. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The point isn't whether these students could have ended up infringing Linux, but rather that copyright protection is a double-edged sword. Without it, idiots and their lawyers wouldn't be able to pester students whose goal is to learn and play, and Linus wouldn't be able to stop Microsoft from stealing his code.

      IANAL, or an expert on the GPL, but let's just imagine the students had instead created a Linux distro in binary-only form, and didn't offer the source code as well. Or maybe they ripped off part of the kernel, mashed it into a binary and called it their own proprietary kernel, and relicensed it under new terms. Theoretically, I'm sure there's some way of constructing a contrived scenario that would illustrate the point.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    8. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by shentino · · Score: 1

      It's a bit harder to infringe on Linux copyrights considering the whole shebang is licensed under the GPL.

    9. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Yup. My company finds this very useful. We use a binary only version of a modified Linux kernel, taking advantage of the clause in the GPL that says that you don't have to accept the licence since you haven't signed it.

    10. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by icebraining · · Score: 1

      IANAL, or an expert on the GPL, but let's just imagine the students had instead created a Linux distro in binary-only form, and didn't offer the source code as well. Or maybe they ripped off part of the kernel, mashed it into a binary and called it their own proprietary kernel, and relicensed it under new terms. Theoretically, I'm sure there's some way of constructing a contrived scenario that would illustrate the point.

      If Linux copyright owners sent a takedown notice to some students even if they were violating the GPL, I would think they were assholes too. Fortunately, most copyright violations of the GPL are handled amicably by the FSF and other groups, even when it's a large company violating the copyright.

      The point isn't whether these students could have ended up infringing Linux, but rather that copyright protection is a double-edged sword. Without it, idiots and their lawyers wouldn't be able to pester students whose goal is to learn and play, and Linus wouldn't be able to stop Microsoft from stealing his code.

      http://questioncopyright.org/copyright_and_open_source

    11. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      You're joking, right?

      For the record, I mostly run Debian-based systems, occasionally Gentoo or Red Hat. I've been meaning to play with Mandrake lately, but haven't gotten around to it. I also have a couple Solaris boxes I haven't lit up in a while.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    12. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Relative difficulty is not the point. It is certainly possible to infringe on the GPL, although the particular example of students hacking code would more likely be embraced rather than opposed. But I'm saying that the same copyright laws that protect Linux under GPL protect software other licensing schemes as well, whether we favor them or not. If we want others to respect the GPL and other OSS licenses, we should be prepared to respect their restrictive licenses as well.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    13. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by ChrisMP1 · · Score: 1

      Well no, I wasn't - what you said still seems like a completely different thing to me (and I still get the idea that you were looking for an argument). However, it was childish of me to call you a troll, swear at you, and accuse you of "foaming at the mouth", so I apologize for that. I'll try to stop being an ass.

      --
      <sig>&nbsp;</sig>
    14. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      No worries, no harm done.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    15. Re:Let's look at this differently ... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      And if I came off trollish, I didn't mean too. Sorry there.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  22. Namco makes a good point by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There really is a good lesson about intellectual property to learn here. No, it's not exactly the lesson Namco wants these students to learn, but in this overly litigious society, it's important for everyone getting an education in computer programming to learn about patents, copyrights, and trademarks, both in terms of how they work and in terms of what their limits are. After all, you can create a Pac-Man-like game without treading on Namco's turf, and programmers should take some time to learn just how to do this sort of thing.

  23. Trademark and sprite ripping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There is another PACMAN in scratch if you search you'll find a dozen of them.

    One of the key differences between those and 124Scratch's version is he used the original sprites from the game. Using those game sprites is a gray area when it comes to fair use (there are like 3 or so basic sprites, hard to copyright such little IP). But the real problem is trademark. NAMCO has a trademark on the PAC-MAN and the ghosts. They license those trademarks often. And in trademark it is protect it or lose it. Every poor student they ignore is a wedge for a some cheap ass software company to use as cover in a court case. Imagine every cheap cell phone with an identical rip-off of pac-man on it, except junky and hard to control. We expect the NAMCO PAC-MAN brand to be a certain quality (although the 3D ones pretty much sucked in terms of gameplay, so maybe not anymore).

    Anyways trademark is there for a company to protect their brand. Establishing a brand costs money and maintaining it costs money, it has value and therefor should be protected. And as soon as a company no longer cares about their brand it ceases to be protected. It's a fairer system than the copyright system, in the sense that it actually ends. (copyright lasts like 10,000 years now?)

  24. Part of Our Education by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    Should include what's broken with current IP law, so that when you get out of school and become a member of the voting public you can be sure to ask you congressman to fix it. Or run for office and fix it yourself.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  25. Re:man by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    My sons primary school teacher sometimes organizes the kids into a game she calls pac man. Its basically Tag with kids organized on a grid in the playground. Its real pac man in real life. I hope they don't get sued.

  26. Just call it by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    Pill-Man

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  27. How To Fix Namco's Outlook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

    We can fix this, guys.

    Hi Everyone. I run an intellectual property exchange in the entertainment business. I've also been a hacker since age 11 in 1987 and cannot name a medium that I myself haven't pirated or hacked in some way. My exchange sells rights to companies like Namco and ABC and CBS for use in their productions. For example, if you wanted to use Brad Pitt's image or Wal Mart's storefront or Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" in your film, you actually have to negotiate with Pitt, Walmart or Lady Gaga's people to use their IP (song, image, brand) in your film. As far as the entertainment industry is concerned, there is no such thing as fair use because intra-industry everything is paid for. "The Deadliest Catch" has to pay Bon Jovi, for example, every time they play his music, according to a pre-negotiated arrangement with Bon Jovi. That means when "The Deadliest Catch" plays ONE SECOND of a Bon Jovi song (or less), DeadCatch and Discovery Networks owe Bon Jovi money.

    I expect Bando Namcai to pay me when they use IP they buy on our exchange. I expect the same of ABC, CBS, NBC as well. These companies use IP to turn a profit.

    By the same token I'm pretty sure that 90% of my gigs of MP3's and 100% of terabytes of films have been acquired by ripping. I am the pirate and the dealer. And you know what?

    Everyone in Hollywood is.

    That's a good thing. None of us would be able to hack nearly as well as we do were not for the Pirated Software Movement. Why does my company run on Windows that I now pay for? Because I pirated it as a kid and got hooked. (go ahead, snicker you uber geeks.) Now that I am an inventor and entrepreneur I expect businesses to pay for my own software that we write and intellectual inventions I sell them...but I expect consumers to pay for my *physical* inventions or my events. Youtube should pay royalties to Viacom....youtube is making some revenue on Viacom's IP. Should the user pay to license music or film in front of Wal Mart or wear a Brad Pitt mask in a video? I don't think so. I think that when certain ideas are introduced one cannot expect to collect on ALL usages of an idea. Many usages are simply a form of conversation and should be tolerated.

    Ikea and even upscale furniture companies, for example, doesn't sue the sites that show you how to build furniture cheaply. It's a GOOD thing that those blogs exist as only the BEST and most USEFUL designs are copied. This an example of the great conversation of human ideas.

    However, the entertainment industry IP is protected by a cadre of lawyers. Ironically we NEED the lawyers to protect us against one another, as Hollywood's negotiation ethic is "screw or be screwed." Unfortunately, my industry bretheren are so accustomed to ripping one another off that it is easy for the lawyers to trick us into paying for defense.

    Now, I can't tell you who I am cuz I could lose a lot of business...but I do want to change the industry for the better. I do need to be sensitive myself though, as I sell to all the big media companies. Yet -- as Geeks are now a social force, we can start fixing this wrong mindset, but it will take a small swarm of us, acting regularly.

    Bando Namcai is a big public company. They have offices in the USA and Japan. Figure out how to email the CEO and the board and everyone with a C-in the beginning of the title. The letter should be VERY professional and courteous, but stern. If a few people sent paper letters that would be EXTREMELY impacting. It is a social hack. When I want someone's attention I send a paper letter. It's an open port that big corporations overweight. It's one of the few ports where you can send a message to the management team and have ALL of senior management at huge companies hammering on their underlings to address your problem.

    The nature of the letter should be as such. Identify yourself as a consumer of games, especially if you consume Bando Namcai Games like Soul Calibur, Tekken, etc... an

  28. If they made it from scratch.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... (no pun intended) then, by definition, it is not a copy in any sense of the term that would be applicable to copyright.

    It may infringe on trademarks if it used those...

    But you can't copyright an idea. It's unfortunate that it appears to have been taken down

    1. Re:If they made it from scratch.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as making things from scratch.
      If I copy a painting, can I declare I made it from scratch, using only linnen and oil paint? Of course not. But even if you create an original work, it will still have inputs in the forms of ideas and raw materials. Copyright applies only to a subset of the ideas (we can't even copy raw materials), and precisely that was what they copied from Namco.

  29. Re:Learn better by wkurzius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The reason answers exist in the back of math textbooks is not for cheating. They are there so you can check your methods and determine if you are going about things the right way.

    One of my first programming experiences was making a tic-tac-toe game on the TI-83 my high school gave me. I knew the game already, I knew how it was supposed to look and work, and therefore allowed to me to concentrate on the method only. I had the answer, I just needed to figure out how to get there.

    Scratch is a learning tool, aimed at elementary students, perhaps going into high school bit. Maybe the students (assuming they're students) shouldn't have posted the project online, but I encourage them to rip off every game they need to until they're comfortable enough to make their own.

  30. No, they don't make a good point. by mark-t · · Score: 1

    They are being a bunch of whiney crybabies because somebody copied an *IDEA* that they had... Ideas are not copyrightable.

    If the person had actually copied any of Namco's original Pacman code to make the game, then there would be copyright infringement. But that doesn't seem to have happened here... somebody just recreated it (no pun intended) from scratch.

    Admittedly, there is still the trademark issue of "Pac Man", and it's only on that premise that they should have any claim whatsoever, but I notice that they didn't go after the other projects on the site that use the trademarked term (and at least one of them even uses the trademarked logo).

    1. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by hyphz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I've taken a look at the site.

      What it APPEARS has happened here is that NAMCO have _assumed_, based on the appearance of the site, that what's running on the site is actually a Java emulator running the Pac-Man ROM. I say that because a) the loading sequence that Scratch projects show when invoked via the web looks just like the startup for such a Java emulator, and b) there are still lots of pac-man games on the Scratch site that haven't been affected.

      Alternatively, it could be the case that an evil-minded student rival reported the page to NAMCO. See, letting people infringe on your copyright just by turning a blind eye is ok; but if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned.

      There is definitely something deeper here than what has been reported, and it may be worth reserving judgment until we know what it is.

    2. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by mark-t · · Score: 3, Informative

      "if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned."

      AFAIK, what you're describing happens only with trademarks, not copyrights, so I think you may be confusing the two. At most, people that the copyright holder does not take rightful action against might be construed as having been given implicit permission to copy the work, but that should not remotely affect future cases against other people.

    3. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's especially funny when the people who get the takedown notices aren't doing it for a profit at all. Shouldn't stuff like this be considered a form of flattery? WowO!!! I liked pacman sooooo much I learned to make it using xx and/or YY!~

      Damn.... I know I could delete funny, because I mean sad.

    4. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by langelgjm · · Score: 1

      You're correct. Trademarks need to be actively defended, lest, among other things, they become genericized. This is absolutely not the case with copyrights, which can be selectively enforced.

      On the other hand, laches could apply to copyright under certain circumstances (see this example), but that's a different story.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    5. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      The problem with that fallacy is that NAMCO can just give the students a license. So, no, NAMCO did NOT have to shut down the project.

    6. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by westlake · · Score: 1

      if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned.

      You are confusing trademarks and copyrights. But the Pac-Man characters - and the other distinctive design elements of a Pac-Man game - almost certainly are trademarked.

    7. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      but if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned.

      Bullshit. So citation please.

    8. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, it could be the case that an evil-minded student rival reported the page to NAMCO. See, letting people infringe on your copyright just by turning a blind eye is ok; but if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned.

      This action _could_ be to just grant a license to use the trademark. It doesn't have to be a cease and desist.

    9. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by sorak · · Score: 1

      you can copyright the look and feel of something. I would consider it analogous to making a new painting and saying "no you can't photocopy it, and no, you cannot hand-paint an identical replica". But, had they changed the stages, maybe added a new feature, or changes some play mechanic, and used slightly different images, then they would have been fine.

    10. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Look and feel is not a copyrightable concept for software. There is even court precedence for this - Apple vs Microsoft, specifically.

    11. Re:No, they don't make a good point. by sorak · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but the actual decision there was that the functional parts could not be copyrighted. For example, I cannot copyright the order or placement of buttons on a navigation menu, because those serve a functional purpose. you can, however, copyright specific images and UI components whose only purpose is decorative.

      So, the look of pacman, the walls of the pacman maze, the ghosts, and the fruit may be copyrightable. (I know pacman could be trademarked, but the image could also be copyrighted). But the placement of the high score would not.

      Also, the Apple vs Ms case hinged primarily on a licensing agreement between the two, which overrode general copyright law.

  31. Ridiculous. by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    Somewhere in the federally-declared disaster area I call an apartment, I have an old programming book that details remaking various arcade classics...on the Commodore 64. I'm not sure, but Pac-Man might have been among them. I guess times change.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  32. Perhaps "Streisand Effect" is another good tag... by _0rm_ · · Score: 1

    Because I personally feel like retaliating. Thats bullshit NAMCO!!!

    --
    Boredom is bliss.
  33. Re:Learn better by Windwraith · · Score: 1

    Modded as troll...oh well. I was just pointing out that making new things is a more enriching experience, but read it as you want then.
    Ahem, whatever.
    But even if you are creating a new game, general basic mechanics like jumping, firing, steering a ship, etc, all have logical results that are, as the example you provide, just needing to figure how to get there. Even if doing something complex like material systems for items, movement of particles, or dynamic lighting, you do know the ideal outcome, allowing to get there equally. That you might need to research how to achieve such result, is exactly the same. A game is after all, the combination of several subsystems working together.

  34. NAMCO was right in this case by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn

    Correct, and I did my share of imitating other's games when I was learning. However, I didn't use the same name as the original, and I didn't take copyrighted artwork or music from the originals.

    Using the same name is a clear trademark violation, and NAMCO has to tell them to stop, or they risk losing their trademark here.

    As far as copyright goes, you can't copyright the idea of a "be chased around a maze while gathering prizes, and have power-ups that sometimes let you chase the monsters" game. However, there are a lot of ways to express that idea in a game, and copyright protects NAMCO's particular expression. There's plenty of room left for someone to do a similar game, but different enough that it incorporates no protected elements. From the descriptions i've read from people who played it before it was taken down, they did not stray far at all from NAMCO's particular expression.

    A damned good case can be made that learning how to imitate the idea of something without copying the expression is an important skill that any professional or serious programmer should learn.

  35. The best things in life are free by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

    Intern to troll the interwebs for "violations": $40
    Information infrastructure to hand it to a lawyer without thinking about the consequences: $20,000,000
    Lawyer to send a nasty letter: $400
    Telling MIT how to teach: Priceless

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
  36. COME ON NAMCO by Icegryphon · · Score: 1

    Dang guys, you can't be doing this, I am a devoted fan.
    I love Tekken, Soul Calibur, Even Ridge racer is still kind of cool.
    NOT COOL GUYS, NOT COOL!
    I am still mad at SF4 x Tekken(and vice versa), But I can deal with it.
    I dropped capcom for all the stupid crap they have done.
    Don't go pissing off your fanbase or we will spend our money elsewhere.

    1. Re:COME ON NAMCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't go pissing off your fanbase.

      In today's corporate culture, there is no room for fans, only mindless, passive consumers and blind, unquestioning devotees.

  37. Re:man by p3anut · · Score: 1

    Love it! So going to do this :P

  38. Mod parent insightful/informative by OneAhead · · Score: 1

    While I always enjoy a good round of DMCA-abuse-bashing, it seems like parent is spot on, and that in this particular case, NAMCO is not overstepping the boundaries of decency. In other words, move on people, nothing to see here.

  39. Proposed Federal Law "fair use act" by voss · · Score: 1

    1) The non-commercial use of a trademark for educational purposes shall not invalidate said trademark
    2) The limited use of copyrighted media in a classroom setting consisting of low resolution pictures or video and music clips less than 30 seconds in length for educational purposes shall not be construed as a violation of copyright
    3) Any copyrighted book, magazine, DVD, or computer code, that has been out of print or removed from sale for at least 5 years may be duplicated
    for non-commercial,educational, and/or archival purposes.

    1. Re:Proposed Federal Law "fair use act" by mattr · · Score: 1

      Classes that study literature and film need to view the entire piece.

    2. Re:Proposed Federal Law "fair use act" by cherokee158 · · Score: 1

      Under current copyright law, educational use of copyrighted material is already protected under fair use. At least, it should be, but that determination is generally made by a judge, and he doesn't get to make the call unless someone is brave enough (and rich enough) to stand up to a herd of corporate lawyers.

      Trademark law has no fair use provision, and is more likely to be enforced. It was not always as zealously enforced as it is now, because corporations did not have eyes and ears everywhere like they do now.

      The proliferation of IP laws, and the necessity of legal counsel to sort them all out in the event of possible infringement, coupled with the pervasive nature of modern communications is turning this country's free market of ideas into a bunch of corporate fiefdoms defended by lawyers.

  40. If you stand on the shoulders of giants by houghi · · Score: 1

    nowadays you need to pay them.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  41. Utter Bullshit, new ideas common and everywhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Except of course that the true purpose of all the "intellectual property", as the mega-corps and their paid-for politicos envision it, is to prevent exactly that and to ensure that no innovation is possible without it "belonging" to one of the "gate keepers" of all future progress

    Come on. New ideas, new worlds (especially in gaming) are made all the time! Where are the scary boogity boo gatekeepers that blocked Doodle Jump? Or Braid?

    I agree that the world would be better served by using the original term of copyright, to let old ideas have new life. But the long term grasp the huge companies have on said ideas simply strangles what they have; it simply does not preclude a vast world of new ideas from being born and seeming all the more fresh to a world that craves uniqueness and the unusual.

    So I say, let Disney have the mouse for a billion trillion years. They can dance with that hoary skeleton until the end of time while the rest of the world moves past them, and they wonder why they in turn cannot come up with new ideas that work like Pixar can (yes I know technically Disney owns Pixar). And in time of course Disney gets it's own comeuppance, since it can no longer borrow liberally and freely from old treasured children's stories as they, too, are protected forever...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Utter Bullshit, new ideas common and everywhere by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Come on. New ideas, new worlds (especially in gaming) are made all the time! Where are the scary boogity boo gatekeepers that blocked Doodle Jump? Or Braid?

      The fact that the "intellectual property" crowd has not yet achieved their desired goals completely does not mean that they are not in the process of doing so. With every 100+ year copyright the field of possible gaming ideas that are not covered narrows since there is a finite number of fundamental variations on the interaction with a game and claims of "significant similarities" become more and more viable to pursue the "derivative works" tithe collection strategy.

      But the long term grasp the huge companies have on said ideas simply strangles what they have; it simply does not preclude a vast world of new ideas from being born and seeming all the more fresh to a world that craves uniqueness and the unusual.

      You clearly do not grasp the scope of the copyright. Any work even remotely similar can be attempted to be acquired by a mega-corp via claims of it being somehow "derivative" (subject to wholly subjective and utterly whimsical since no scientific formulae exist for this - and highly bribe sensitive - opinion of a judge) and no indy studio is going to withstand a multi-million legal assault by a Sony, a Viacom or an Electronic Arts. The only reason these two-bit gaming productions are not molested is precisely because they are precisely that, beneath the contempt of these mega-corporations. Little cockroaches feeding on the crumbs that fell unnoticed from the feast table.

      So I say, let Disney have the mouse for a billion trillion years. They can dance with that hoary skeleton until the end of time while the rest of the world moves past them, and they wonder why they in turn cannot come up with new ideas that work like Pixar can (yes I know technically Disney owns Pixar). And in time of course Disney gets it's own comeuppance, since it can no longer borrow liberally and freely from old treasured children's stories as they, too, are protected forever...

      You defeat your own arguments. Disneys of the world are doing quite fine, thank you, by ever expanding their control over the popular culture and by acquiring rights in perpetuity to anything that can be a base for further creations, in fact these very children stories are also being acquired by the likes of Disney for their "portfolios" of "intellectual property" and so they are the only ones to gain from it, to the detriment of the humanity at large.

    2. Re:Utter Bullshit, new ideas common and everywhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The fact that the "intellectual property" crowd has not yet achieved their desired goals completely does not mean that they are not in the process of doing so. With every 100+ year copyright the field of possible gaming ideas that are not covered narrows since there is a finite number of fundamental variations on the interaction with a game and claims of "significant similarities" become more and more viable to pursue the "derivative works" tithe collection strategy.

      You know nothing about game design or prior art. With every attempt to patent everything they weaken the portfolios they have because they do not check for prior art.

      You clearly do not grasp the scope of the copyright. Any work even remotely similar can be attempted to be acquired by a mega-corp via claims of it being somehow "derivative" (subject to wholly subjective and utterly whimsical since no scientific formulae exist for this

      You clearly no nothing about law. The rules are not whimsy but well defined, and attempts to step outside narrow bands of the law are met with failure.

      You defeat your own arguments. Disneys of the world are doing quite fine, thank you

      "Princess and the Frog".

      And with that, I leave you to your fantastic visions of unreality - you may have the last response since I think at this point all can see what little reality you might once have clung to has slipped away utterly.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Utter Bullshit, new ideas common and everywhere by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      You clearly no nothing about law. The rules are not whimsy but well defined, and attempts to step outside narrow bands of the law are met with failure.

      Total bullshit. If one work of art or invention is "derivative" (term used in case law) of another is purely subjective determination and yet it is the basis of copyright claims and patent lawsuits, results of which are random, with bias towards the party outspending the other by a factor of 10.

      If you contest this, you will have to present a scientific formula for determination of what information is and what is not "derivative" of some other bit of information. I will not hold my breath.

      And with that, I leave you to your fantastic visions of unreality - you may have the last response since I think at this point all can see what little reality you might once have clung to has slipped away utterly.

      This moronic comment of yours is devoid of any sense whatsoever.

    4. Re:Utter Bullshit, new ideas common and everywhere by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Come on. New ideas, new worlds (especially in gaming) are made all the time!

      It's been said that Shakespeare wrote all the plays in the world, and all that came after were derivative. What you think is new really isn't. Everything that exists comes from what came before, even Pixar.

      Every FPS is Wolfenstein. Every multiplayer FPS is Quake. This is what we're up against.

  42. Pot calling kettle black by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apart from the look and feel of the game, NAMCO doesn't own *ANYTHING* made by these students. The source code (THE SOFTWARE) is *NOT* owned by NAMCO, and I would bet that 99% of the software is different from anything NAMCO created. Considering it was written in a different language, I would suspect that it looks *EXTREMELY* different. In fact, I would suspect that *EVERY SINGLE* student had software that was different from every other student, and FURTHER, if any two students had software that was the same, or even sections of code that were even *SIMILAR*, then those students would be up for *PLAGARISM* and cheating (A SERIOUS ACADEMIC OFFENSE). It would be *ONE HELL OF A COINCIDENCE* if any of these students had any code (even one line) that matched up with theirs. Now in terms of ownership of intellectual property, NAMCO *DOES NOT OWN ONE TINY BIT* or even byte of the software that these students wrote. The software that NAMCO wrote or bought, they own. The software these students wrote, is owned by the students. WHERE does NAMCO get off claiming it owns software written by someone else, that it did not buy? Its like NAMCO has a gold mine, and claims that theirs is the only one in the world. If someone else has a gold mine, and has gold from it, NAMCO is coming along and saying *HEY, ALL YOUR GOLD ARE BELONG TO US*. Its a lie. NAMCO doesn't, and they are seriously over-reaching here. They have no damn business writing any such letter. I have half a mind to sue the ass hole rat bastards myself.

  43. Counter-notice by uvajed_ekil · · Score: 1

    Dear NAMCO,
    You are irrelevant, and your Pac-man brand is dead (your bad, evolve and keep releasing, or die). No one is trying to rip you off, nor does anyone want to. Get over yourselves.

    Sincerely,
    Everyone

    --
    This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
  44. Re:Perhaps "Streisand Effect" is another good tag. by trytoguess · · Score: 1

    Eh, considering that there are dozens of free alternatives besides this one, I'd say not really.

  45. Whence Pacman by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    So, where does Pacman come into this then?

    Instead of developing Pacman, think of your own character and game, if the thing is meant to be public at all. Find an artist who is desperate for exposure (read: all of them). Make something really unique instead of Just Another Pacman.

    Don't advertise for people that would attack you. Just let them fade away since that is apparently what they wish.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Whence Pacman by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      So, why not give that advice to NAMCO. Pacman is not even close to original. There were run around the maze and get chased by bad guys games as early as 1972, on a home system no less.

  46. Re:first post by countertrolling · · Score: 1

    That would only show complete lack of concern for the intellectual property of others...

    --
    For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
  47. How about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Little kid being chased by Lawyers. Power pellets can be Shotguns. :-)

  48. Namco - Pacman???? by dogzdik · · Score: 0

    And just how many decades ago was it when that came out? I remember it being in arcade machines when I was 11 and I am now mid 40's; and these dick heads at Namco carry on like that? Fuck them.

    --

    .

    Voting up, Voting down - If I really gave a fuck about your approval or not, I'd come and ask you.

  49. In a late 60's SciAm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it described the guys at PARC teaching little kids how to make copter simulations in smalltalk.
    What happened? Was it the 8 bit era that destroyed that momentum? Microsoft? BASIC?
    Yes, That was truly gold plated hardware, but it only took 10 years to throwback
    development into the programmable calculator age for over 40 years.
    I'm not to impressed with scratch if their demo software shows it's best features.

  50. It's not the learning they're upset about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given all the discussion around here about torrents, P2P, etc., I'm surprised nobody sees the issue here. NAMCO probably has no issue with someone copying the game from scratch (no pun intended). Their issue is that it's up on-line for all the world to see and play. The student essentially copied the game and made it freely available to the world. That it's a trivial and ancient game that's easily reproducible with modern coding tools doesn't mitigate this in legal minds. If someone coded up God of War 3 from scratch and posted it on-line the creators of it would have a HUGE issue. Even though that would be damned near impossible, and GOW 3 is a recent game and not almost 30 years old is irrelevant. Write code, practice, copy existing games, that's fine, but posting it on-line is an issue. Another poster said art students copy art all the time. That's fine, because a sophmore's copy of the Mona Lisa will not be put up next to the original in the Louvre and be just as good.

    1. Re:It's not the learning they're upset about by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      AFAIK it's completely legal to copy old art, even in high quality, as long as there's no chance that the copy may be confused with the original, and you don't claim it to be painted by the original artist (e.g. you shouldn't put the original artist's signature on it).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  51. Re:first post by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    You are violating the intellectual property rights of the first "first post" poster. Expect a C&D letter soon.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  52. Who's intellectual property? by mcfedr · · Score: 1

    Other than the name, which is a trademark, not intellectual property, what are NAMCO claiming they own? the programming language, the program, presumably all the graphics, were all created by the students

  53. Re: Mod Points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's all out of Mod Points, and so lost without them,
    that he can't even say, how people can help him
    get along on this board, and play nice with others,
    talkin' about copyrights and video game covers, O-ho...

    With Nods to Air Supply.

  54. public school programming by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    would have liked to see the pacman game, the other I tried looked like the ones we made in public school.

  55. I first read this as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to intimidate others.

    In the case of NAMCO, that seems appropriate enough.

  56. The problem was the reuse of NAMCO IP by master_p · · Score: 1

    The game the Scratch user 124scratch made used graphics ripped off the pacman roms. It is IP theft. Of course, it's questionable if NAMCO should have sent the take down notice, because it's quite silly; this scratch game is not gonna keep NAMCO from profiting from pacman.

    What NAMCO should have done is to require 124scratch to put a copyright disclaimer and a link to NAMCO's pacman games' site, encouraging them to try to mimic other NAMCO games.

  57. What I heard here was.... by CougMerrik · · Score: 1

    Wahhh why can't I copy stuff and put it out on the Internet for free?

    You can code up pretty much any copyrighted works you'd like. Once you start becoming a distributor of that software then you run into other companies and their work and they can get pretty upset with you stealing something they've worked to cultivate and promote into a viable source of income. So yes, sure, you can code up space invaders and pacman and whatever when you're learning to code. Don't 1.) Try and distribute it and definitely don't 2.) Fail to acknowledge the sources. Rewriting a clone of something and then distributing it for free isn't "Fair Use", it's just dumb.

    Anyway, you're not learning much about writing code from putting your code up on a website anyway, are you? If you want to do that maybe you should just take a few days, add a banana cream pie that lets "Cap-Nam" shoot lasers at the little ghosts or alter the terrain, some other random additions and modifications that change the game from being a "clone" to being a "-like", and there ya go. Learning how to copy things that exist is probably half the goodness of programming. The other half is dreaming up new ideas.

    Recap: Code, yes. Distribute, no.

    1. Re:What I heard here was.... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      Anyway, you're not learning much about writing code from putting your code up on a website anyway, are you?

      Errr...perhaps not...but you may be helping other people to learn...which seems to be a neat side-effect of students being able to share their Scratch projects.
      I have no idea what you mean by:

      You can code up pretty much any copyrighted works you'd like.

      Imitating the game-play elements of pacman from scratch in the language of your choice is not "coding up a copyrighted work"...well, it is, but you own the copyright to it. (Unless you have directly copied code, or game resources such as sprites, midi sounds, etc.) If the sprites were ripped straight from a game rom it would be a copyright infringement, which, I agree would be stupid, but otherwise, what's the problem? Level layouts may be a grey area...

      The other half is dreaming up new ideas.

      Tell NAMCO.

      Recap: it's pretty obvious you haven't looked at the Scratch website. Why not?

  58. Call it "Ghosts and Pills!" by andi75 · · Score: 1

    If you call it "Ghosts and pills", and don't use any of the original artwork, can they do anything at all?

    1. Re:Call it "Ghosts and Pills!" by spike1 · · Score: 1

      Nonono

      Call it Ghosts'n'Gobbling

  59. I started that when Scratch first appeared by ukgod · · Score: 1

    I used scratch for a while when it first appeared but I abandoned it when I couldn't get some of scratch's features to work properly (some things work in the offline version, but once you upload them and play them from the web site they fail)
    Here's my first attempt at a Pacman demo.
    http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/darkmuse/9082
    I did draw the maze and sprites myself though.

  60. Why not just... by danmart1 · · Score: 1

    Why not learn about IP and fair use at the same time. Change a couple of things around astheticaly and claim fair use. I realize this isn't the best way to handle it, but I'm a dick and this is how I would respond to assholes.

  61. Namco's original Pacman lawsuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny how Ms Pacman came from some computer hackers, playing around with Pacman hardware. Maybe something good would have come out of this project?

    "Ms. Pac-Man was originally conceived as a bootlegged hack of Pac-Man called Crazy Otto, created by programmers employed at the General Computer Corporation (GCC). The programmers, surprised at the quality of the game they had created, showed it to Midway, Namco's American distributor of the original game. Midway had become impatient in waiting for Namco to release its next Pac-Man game (which would be Super Pac-Man), and were enthusiastic that such a game had come to their attention. They bought the rights to Crazy Otto, changed the sprites to fit the Pac-Man universe, renamed the game Ms. Pac-Man, and released it into arcade. After the game became wildly popular, Midway and GCC undertook a brief legal battle concerning royalties, but because the game was accomplished without Namco's consent, both companies eventually turned over the rights of Ms. Pac-Man to Namco, fearing a lawsuit."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms._Pac-Man

  62. Love all the people screaming... by ledow · · Score: 1

    Check your facts:

    http://scratch.mit.edu/users/124scratch

    See what they've got on there. Basically pixel-for-pixel identical games from the arcade. They probably even used the original graphics/ROM's in order to get that "authentic". And they call them Pac-man or Donkey Kong. It's not the only one they've done and they call them all by their trademarked original names.

    Welcome to real life, where if you directly steal other's work, distribute it, calling it by its original name, and get caught, you end up in trouble or at the very least with a cease-and-desist.

    The kid can use it, they can make their own pet project, they can use the original graphics (hell, most programmers will substitute existing images in prototypes in order to get a feel for how it looks), but the second you start distributing it, it's no different to a school coursework which includes an MP3 of a chart hit (even historical), or a photographer's image without their permission, or huge excerpts verbatim from a still-in-print book. Yeah, a lot of people would just let it slide but NAMCO are well within their rights here, the kid didn't get sued or harsh punishment (just a "don't do that"), and if he'd had the brains to just call it a clone, not use only the words "Pac-man" in describing the game (even "Pac-man clone" would have been okay), and hadn't ripped-off graphics pixel-for-pixel, then nobody would care and it would be like the other 10 million Pac-man clones lining the web where people DID have the sense not to copy to this level of detail.

    Nothing bad happened, nobody went to court, nobody demanded money (and NAMCO had to PAY to instruct their lawyer, don't forget), they just wanted the game taken off. It's happened a million times in the past, will continue to happen, and people KNOW it's not right.

    I used to follow OpenTTD until they dismissed off-handly the fact that they were telling people to download a free, full copy of Transport Tycoon's graphics from an abandonware site in order to run their clone - and that was from one of the founding members. Disassembly of the original? No problem. Reliance on the original graphics? Great accuracy for me as a gamer, no problem. Pointing people to direct links to questionable abandonware sites for a file that can't be legally distributed, on the main wiki pages of the project and refusing to take them off while simultaneously chastising people for mentioning it on the forums? Just asking for trouble. Microprose does have a successor-in-interest somewhere and that attitude from some of the project leaders was just intolerable to me, so I stopped contributing. Who knows what else they've got inside their preciously-licensed and lovingly copyright-daubed code if they are just willing to infringe the author's copyright wholesale while pretending to maintain an air of respectability. I have original copies of TTD. Several years ago I made the code in TTD that verified the GRF file used was the original file because I had the DOS and Windows versions still sitting on a shelf. I used my CD to provide the original graphics and sound long before any "graphics replacement" projects existed. But I was disgusted by the attitude that you could just encourage users to download an absolutely, cast-iron, illegal copy that was required to run your clone project.

    There's programming, there's cloning, there's even emulation (MAME is 100% legal don't forget), and then there's just outright copyright ignorance. This is the latter, and nobody got hurt, except NAMCO's legal budget.

  63. Mother sues daughter by tekrat · · Score: 1

    For copying her DNA!

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  64. Re:man by nizo · · Score: 1

    The hard part comes at the end of the day when you have to explain why some of the kids ate some of the other kids.

  65. Re:Perhaps "Streisand Effect" is another good tag. by _0rm_ · · Score: 1

    Still bullshit.

    --
    Boredom is bliss.