Slashdot Mirror
Villains & Vigilantes Creators Sue Publisher
rcade writes "Jeff Dee and Jack Herman, the creators of the super-hero roleplaying game Villains & Vigilantes, have filed a federal copyright lawsuit against the game's longtime publisher Scott Bizar of Fantasy Games Unlimited. They allege that Bizar has no rights to publish the game because his corporation was dissolved in 1991, reverting the rights to them. Dee and Herman revived the old-school RPG last year and have been battling Bizar ever since. Sadly, this suit will not be resolved by muscle-bound men in tights."
How about we try a new roll playing game where everyone acts like adults and business people and resolve their differences without suing everyone and invoking copyrights, trademarks and patents?
Sadly, this suit will not be resolved by muscle-bound men in tights.
There are so many puns here.
I remember our interpretation of their acronym:
Fscking Game's Unplayable
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
Wow, I'd forgotten about this game. I played V&V back in 1987-ish with buddies back in junior high. We had the Marvel Super Heroes game too, for when we wanted to play "legit" super-heroes. Good times...
FYI, here's a review of it (not mine): http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9439.phtml
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Don't get me wrong, I loved V&V, I played it for years, but it's so amazingly outdated now. If you want the same feel but with a smoother system, try out Icons from Adamant Entertainment. You get the awesomeness of a randomly-rolled superhero (try it, it's a great creative springboard), a nice combat system, no miniatures to worry about, and a great story balance between high-powered supers and lower-powered ones. And yes...these are the same folks coming out with the Buckaroo Banzai RPG.
Lawyers and Losers
Go Dee and Herman!
FTA:
Our contract was with Fantasy Games Unlimited, Inc. -- which, we recently discovered, was "dissolved by proclamation" by the state of NY in 1991 for failure to pay state taxes. It no longer exists. And the contract clearly stated that if FGU, Inc., ever ceased to exist, then the publication rights reverted back to us.
If this is accurate, then how does this Bizar guy even have a leg to stand on to fight this? How can he claim anything at all? It seems like any litigation would reach the point where that bombshell is dropped and the judge would place judgement against Bizar for whatever these guys are asking for.
Once upon a time, I owned a game shop, I enjoyed playing V&V myself because it was a break from DMing. We had a super fun cheesy time, bellowing battle cries while we tossed dice to see if we fell flat on our face or landed a deadly blow. We had a GM for V&V nicked named Dizzy, and he put on a great game. Thinking back there are just some things that don't translate well into computer gaming. The social aspect of it being the number one thing that comes to mind. Gone are the late nights, the delivered pizza boxes stacked up, piles of empty soda cans and playing hard until everyone is goofy tired, played out and ready to crawl home and sleep late. We smoked too, a thick haze choked the pastiest of geeks, so we had a fan blowing it out. It was a place to go for so many people. Kids used to tell us that they would much rather be gaming at the shop than out at a party.
I still remember my cheesy character I named "The Black Mask", who wore a black mask...real brilliant, huh? But it I played it up until it would slay the lactose intolerant.
Take the Red Pill.
I didn't even know it was back. Wow.
Does it still feature the "you, the player, are your superheroes secret identity" gimmick? I'd buy a copy just for that. It was an unbelievably cool idea.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Corporations that are dissolved by the state do not cease to exist, but once dissoved only have the legal capacity to pay off outstanding debts and disburse assets to shareholders.
The chief shareholder and/or chief creditor of FGU was Bizar.
Consequently, most assets including (but not limited to) the right to publish V&V were assigned to Bizar.
Bizar then formed a sole proprietorship with the name FGU which, as a sole proprietorship run by him, has the right publish whatever he has the right to publish.
If it is true that the clause about right to publish ceasing to exist if FGU the corporation was dissolved is unenforceable, there are many chains of events that end in Bizar having the right to publish V&V. The example above is just one scenario among many plausible scenarios. I do not know if any of the "facts" I presented above are accurate. I'm just laying out a plausible example of how it might be that Bizar believes that he has the right to publish V&V.
At any rate, Bizar will most likely file a response to the complain soon. When he does, his side of the story will be presented.
The creators of something have to sue a distributer to retain ownership? What a perfect representation of ownership in the 21st century.
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
What AK Mark wrote needs to be prefaced by "it's possible that..." or "I speculate that..."
Almost all of the reasoning here is based on guesses and speculation.
...Thus, anyone who bought 100% of the assets that were held for bankruptcy would have a claim
Maybe. Depends on the details of the bankruptcy, and what the court said.
on the illegally rescinded publication right.
You are stating that the publication right was "illegally rescinded." Without any knowledge of the contract or the case, you cannot state that with any certainty.
...So he likley does have a claim,
Maybe. Depends on what the court said, and what the contract said. You should rephrase "likley" to "it is not impossible that..."
unless you can prove that the contract clause was indeed valid and properly executed.
This one is just plain wrong. Sorry. The burden of proof is to show that a contract is not valid, not that it is.
Everything I've heard of similar ended up....
"Everything I've heard" is an argument with no legal validity.
The courts will rull that the contract as signed was invalid and that the clause was invalid at the time of signature and is severable from the contract, and thus stricken,
This is pure speculation, unless you've seen the contract and know the details of the bankruptcy as well as the case law of the particular state. I suggest substituting the word "might rule" instead of "will rull".
(assuming a standard severability clause....
That's the key here, "assume." What you will conclude depends on what you assume.
We already have that - it's called Craps.
The fact that this went on for so long and the plaintiff didn't have any problems until recently would seem like an "easement" of sorts has been created, at least with respect to copies made in the past.
Yes, I know easements are for real estate but the concept is portable: If you knowingly let people use your property (real, physical, or otherwise) over an extended period of time and don't at least say "woah, ask permission first next time, please" you may lose exclusive control over it.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.