I know what you meant. Most of our machines at work are Dells, and they're dead easy. I use one disc for all of our machines. It's just like a regular XP Pro install CD that works on any Dell, and you don't need to activate it.
But I also help people out with their personal machines, if they're not too badly hosed. This girl brought in some machine - I don't even remember what the "brand name" was, might have been Cicero or something - and their "recovery CD" was just a nightmare. Of course, she hadn't saved any of the documentation. It was a miracle she had saved the disc. Too bad, or I would have told her to just buy a new machine.
But I fought my way through their lousy interface that would have made someone who has never inatalled an OS before run screaming from the room. And I got XP reinstalled, and her data restored from the back up I had made, then three weeks later her ISP calls her up and says her computer is probing other machines looking for Windows shares.
So I let her bring it in one more time, went through the whole miserable procedure once again, then created limited user accounts for her and her kids and told her if she needed to do something that required Administrator access, bring the thing back in and I'll do it.
Moral of the story is you get what you pay for. You want a dirt cheap rock bottom machine, you're not going to get a full XP install disc. And the sad part is, the same a-holes who buy these types of machines would never be the ones to try to reinstall from the crappy recovery CD. They'll coerce some poor friend/relative/neighbor in to fighting with it.
I'd never heard o Brawndo. I use Power Bar products, and Gator Aid, when I run. I guess I'll have to give Brawndo a try. Do you work for them, or are you just a satisfied customer?
You might still be able to reinstall, though. Someone mentioned below that a lot of machines give you the option of making a recovery CD or DVD. Often, these are created by copying a hidden partition on the hard drive that holds the installation files. So, if you don't see a utility to create a recovery disk, run fdisk (or gparted, or whatever partitioning utility comes on the Kubuntu CD) and see if there is a second partition. You may be able to reinstall off of that.
Also, with some manufacturers you can use any CD to reinstall. Dell CDs, for example, don't care what machine you are installing on, as long as it is a Dell that was sold with an XP license. If you can manage to find someone else with a CD from the same manufacturer, you may be able to use that to legally reinstall Windows.
Or, you could try calling the manufacturer and see if they will send you a replacement. Don't give up if the first person tells you no. Ask to speak with their supervisor. You paid for that XP license when you bought the machine. Use it as a chance to work on your social engineering skills.
As a last resort, you could look on the torrent sites for an ISO of the recovery CD for your machine. This is not pirating, as you are reinstalling the software you purchased with the computer. The proof of license should be on a sticker on the bottom of your laptop.
Of course, trying to get your brother to switch to Kubuntu is a noble gesture, but if he is determined he wants Windows, it's better to help him get a usable XP system back. Or he may end up getting a machine with Vista on it. You sure don't want that.
He doesn't want to give up XP (a reinstall of that may help, but again, I won't help him pirate)
Good for you for not helping him "pirate," but didn't his laptop come with XP? Why the need to "pirate?" Don't you have the "recovery disc" or whatever came with the machine?
That's not really what I asked. A person who bought a cheap Linux PC with the intention of putting Windows on it could not legally purchase and use an OEM version, unless they also purchased a MB (or a hard drive, I believe, but that may not be accurate).
Sure all that shareware crap subsidizes the cost of the OEM license. It really pisses me off that Dell includes shit like Google Toolbar and trial versions of Office One Note on business machines. In fact, machines with copies of One Note that have not been "activated" will cause the machine to fail the WGA check when you try to update your legitimate copy of Office. And google actually pops up a survey page when you uninstall their tool bar asking you why.
All that is beside the point - if a person is looking for a cheap Windows PC, buying a machine with Linux on it then formatting the hard drive and installing Windows isn't going to save you any money, unless you have an unused retail Windows license hanging around and just need to replace the hardware. I doubt very much that using an OEM license on a new machine would be legal, but could be wrong.
it is important to be clear: the text of the rules of the game is protected by copyright, but the ideas described by that text are not
Thank you. It is extremely important to be clear about what is copyrightable, as well as what Hasbro is alleging.
Some of the people in this thread who were arguing that copyright was not relevant seemed to base that belief on the fact that - as you said - the ideas described by the copyrighted text are not copyrightable themselves. This is correct, but they had not bothered to look at the facts of this particular case, and see that Hasbro is claiming infringement on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules and their players dictionary.
So, while their points may have been correct, they were not applicable to this particular case.
There is a lot of stuff in there that is being thrown at the wall to see what sticks, but the copyright claim on the game board is not one of them.
I'm sorry, I do not recall saying that in any of the messages I have posted in this thread. If you can point me at a comment of mine where I suggested that Hasbro is claiming copyright infringement on the game board, please do so and I will post a comment correcting that mis-statement.
In the comment you replied to, I discussed "infringement of their copyrights on the rules and the official game dictionaries." That is a copy/paste. That is the copyright infringement Hasbro is alleging. Sorry for the confusion.
The trademark claim is not overly strong either since it is not merely a question of whether the names are similar, but whether they are deceptively similar so that people are likely to be misled into believing there is a connection between the makers of "Scrabulous" and the makers of "SCRABBLE".
I think that is exactly what Hasbro will argue, and I have to say in my unlearned opinion they have a good case. I mentioned in another comment that my impression - based on the similarity of the name and the game itself - was that they had sought and secured the necessary licensing. If I had come across those links on the Scrabulous site to Hasbro's rules and official Player Dictionary, I would have been further convinced that it was an official Hasbro product.
Just my opinion, but the trademark claim is the one part of this I think they have a strong case for.
It changes from a 125km drive to a 450km drive. That's pretty bad.
Especially considering a lot of people will be staying in the Greater Vancouver area and commuting to and from Whistler to attend events. I don't think there is enough hotel space in Whistler to accommodate everyone attending events there.
Yep. And that's why when they change the board's appearance and the game's title, they're off of the hook.
They are off the hook for the claim of trademark infringement. There is still the matter of Hasbro's claim that they infringed on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules of the game Scrabble, as well as the text of their Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary.
Wow, you put a lot of effort in to that response. It's really too bad you didn't put that effort in to reading the actual complaint, as I suggested you do in another comment.
Well, as long as you're too lazy to go through the post tree, to the places where I cite the US government sites which write out, clear as day, what copyright protects, then I guess I can't fault you for assuming that non-legally-trained staff writers make small mistakes in reporting.
I read the complaint instead. I figured it had more relevance.
If you bother to look into the lawsuit, there are no copyright claims.
You really need to read that complaint. Here, I'll whet your appetite:
FIRST CLAIM (FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT)...
44. Defendants have infringed Hasbro's copyrights in the SCRABBLE crossword game and The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary by copying and publicly displaying and/or preparing or authorizing the preparation of a derivative work of copyrightable matter in Hasbro's SCRABBLE crossword game and The official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary, without Hasbro's consent or authorization.
They sure throw that word "copyright" around a lot for a lawsuit that has nothing to do with copyright.
You see, they are saying that
There are no official rules to the game Scrabulous
"A user not already familiar with the rules of the SCRABBLE crossword game would not know how to play "Scrabulous."
"Until earlier this year, defendants included on their website hyperlinks to official SCRABBLE webpages, resources such as the official SCRABBLE rules, and also other websites offering unauthorized and infringing versions of SCRABBLE.
You may completely disagree with their claim that their copyrights were infringed, but your assertion that they are not claiming copyright infringement is simply wrong.
Well, yeah, I suppose. But drinking excessive amounts of water specifically can be fatal, due to the imbalance of electrolytes it creates. So a game that promotes drinking water to excess is no better than a game that promotes drinking beer to excess. Either one can kill you.
That part seemed bazaar to me too. I had to read it two or three times, and I'm still not sure I understand it.
Hasbro seems to be saying the defendants were claiming that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark of Hasbro. For what purpose I don't know, other than to confuse the player in to thinking it is an official Hasbro game.
This is one of the reasons I believe Hasbro has (or rather had) a legitimate trademark claim.
The meta tags part is problematic. The name of the city I live in has been trademarked, as is the name of a very high profile event we will be hosting in a couple of years. But I use these trademarked words in the meta tags of web page I've made featuring photos I've taken of the city and venues being constructed for the event. What else am I supposed to do? If people are looking for photos of the city, or the buildings being constructed for the event, I want them to be able to find mine.
At the same time, I can understand why I should be prevented from registering a domain featuring these trademarked words, if the domain and the site itself confuse the visitor in to thinking that my site is officially connected to the event or the city.
So I guess my opinion - for what it's worth (which isn't much) - is that there is nothing wrong with using trademarked words in the meta tags of your website, provided your site does not confuse the people visiting it in to thinking you are officially connected to the entity that owns the trademark. In this case, I really think Hasbro has a reasonable trademark claim, especially given the defendants were linking to official, copyrighted Hasbro materials like the rule book and dictionaries, the bazaar statement that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark belonging to Hasbro and the name Scrabulous itself.
Since they have changed the name and (apparently) removed the links to Hasbro's copyrighted materials, that leaves Hasbro with a claim of copyright infringement for linking to those materials in the past.
It will be interesting to see if this ends it or if they continue to pursue litigation.
The rules can't be copyrighted; they're intangible. The rulebook can.
I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation or opinion, but I'll just remind you I was quoting from the complaint. So, you're objection to the phrase "The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection..." really should be directed at Hasbro.
Unless Scrabulous substantially copied the text of the Scrabble rulebook, they didn't violate that copyright.
That is exactly what Hasbro is alleging, that there are no official rules to the game Scrabulous, and - in the past - when players clicked the link for the rules, they are redirected to the official rules of Scrabble, for which Hasbro holds the copyright. Same with the official game dictionary.
It's all in their complaint. If you have not already read it, I encourage you to do so. It isn't very long. (Probably shorter than all of the comments in this thread insisting Hasbro is not claiming copyright infringement, which it is).
Yes, that's copyrighted but I'll skip it because it's not relevant... you were just being thorough in listing the copyrights held by Hasbro. I understand that.
No, I was quoting directly from the complaint. I've quoted further elsewhere in this thread the reason Hasbro considers this relevant, so I will simply encourage you to read my other comments or the complaint itself.
Again, Hasbro is claiming infringement on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules to the game of Scrabble, the text of the game dictionary and violation of their trademark. All three are part of their complaint.
I'm not really sure how well this holds up. "Scrabble" is a word.
So is apple. So is windows. But Apple and Windows are registered trademarks.
The complaint claims that Scrabble has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office since the 1950s for things ranging from "equipment and accessories for playing a board game," scoring devices, accessories such as dice cups, cubes and timers and - notably - "computer game programs" (registered November 26, 2002 under registration number 2,654,348).
I have no idea whether or not any of these trademarks have been challenged, but there they are. Hasbro is saying they are the only ones who can use the word Scrabble to describe a board game, or its electronic counterpart, and that "Scrabulous" is confusingly similar.
I have to say I would tend to agree. My girlfriend was/is addicted to the game and I had assumed, since they were using such a similar name, they must have worked out a licensing agreement with the trademark holder.
If I had gone so far as to click on the link for the rules or dictionary, and been redirected to Hasbros official, copyrighted documents, I would have been convinced this was a Hasbro product. It's this kind of confusion trademark law is designed to prevent.
As for their allegations of copyright infringement, I agree that is not so cut and dried. Especially considering the can of worms you open by claiming that linking to a publicly available document on the web can be construed as copyright infringement.
But Hasbro is saying the defendants directed the players to the official, copyrighted Hasbro rules when looking for the rules to Scrabulous, so I guess they are saying it was no different than copying the rulebook and calling it the Rules of Scrabulous.
I don't know, IANAL and all that, but it should be interesting to see how that part plays out.
True, they tend to throw as much as possible at the wall to see what will stick. But if you read through the claim, infringement of their copyrights on the rules and the official game dictionaries is actually a very significant part of it. They are alleging the defendants linked to official Hasbro resources (like their rules), as they had not created their own like resources.
And I know that opens another can of worms (i.e. if you put it up on the web, how can linking to it be copyright infringement) but I think they are going to argue that these guys copied their game, and when players go looking for the rules, they are directed to Hasbro's rules. When they need a game dictionary, they are directed to Hasbro's dictionary. So they are using their written, copyrighted materials without permission.
I guess an analogy would be when an actor needs his lines, and you direct him to a copy of Citizen Kane, if he performs it line-for-line without permission you are violating the copyright of that work.
The written rules can be copyrighted (like any written work) but the rule concepts are not copyrightable.
The same could be said for a song, or a novel, and I never stated different. The GP said "The look of the board, unlike the rules of the game, CAN be copyrighted." That is not correct. The rules can be copyrighted just like any other written work.
Hasbro's complaint states that there are no official rules for Scrabulous. 'A user not already familiar with the rules of the SCRABBLE crossword game would not know how to play "scrabulous."
'On information and belief, until earlier this year, defendants included on their website hyperlinks to official SCRABBLE webpages, resources such as the official SCRABBLE rules...' (emphasis mine)
I could keep typing this up for you, or you could read it yourself.
Hasbro is claiming infringement of their copyrights, including the copyrights they hold on the written rules of the game. They may be full of it, but that is what they are alleging.
Normal, healthy (both physically and nutritionally) individuals have little to worry about accidentally consuming too much water. Nearly all deaths related to water intoxication in normal individuals have resulted either from water drinking contests, in which individuals attempt to consume more than 3 gallons (10 litres) of water over the course of just a few minutes, or long bouts of intensive exercise during which electrolytes are not properly replenished, yet massive amounts of fluid are still consumed.
That was the case in the first article - the woman had taken part in a "water drinking contest." The second article describes soldiers who died when they drank large amounts of water after long periods of exercise. The key thing is to remember to replace those electrolytes.
I hope you're joking...
Yeah, a little I guess. I have no idea what a beer bong game would involve, other than drinking excessive amounts of beer. My point was that replacing beer with something that can also kill you if you drink it to excess shows someone didn't think this through very thoroughly.
Hasbro is the owner of the following valid and subsisting copyrights registered in the Copyright Office:
A. The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection under registration No. AA 104547, published on December 1, 1948...
B. The Gameboard for SCRABBLE ws first registered for copyright protection under gegistration No. K 18528 and published on December 1, 1948...
C. The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary...
25. The SCRABBLE name is inherently distinctive and has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office...
I'll stop here but you get the idea. To the guy above who says he's a game designer, Hasbro's suit seems to imply that the rules of the game, as well as the layout of the board, can be copyrighted.
This contradicts your comment
Game designs and rules are unprotected. Titles, presentation, artwork and appearances are protected. This is ideal. No brokenness here.
I suppose they can allege whatever they want in their complaint, but they do quote registration numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
I know what you meant. Most of our machines at work are Dells, and they're dead easy. I use one disc for all of our machines. It's just like a regular XP Pro install CD that works on any Dell, and you don't need to activate it.
But I also help people out with their personal machines, if they're not too badly hosed. This girl brought in some machine - I don't even remember what the "brand name" was, might have been Cicero or something - and their "recovery CD" was just a nightmare. Of course, she hadn't saved any of the documentation. It was a miracle she had saved the disc. Too bad, or I would have told her to just buy a new machine.
But I fought my way through their lousy interface that would have made someone who has never inatalled an OS before run screaming from the room. And I got XP reinstalled, and her data restored from the back up I had made, then three weeks later her ISP calls her up and says her computer is probing other machines looking for Windows shares.
So I let her bring it in one more time, went through the whole miserable procedure once again, then created limited user accounts for her and her kids and told her if she needed to do something that required Administrator access, bring the thing back in and I'll do it.
Moral of the story is you get what you pay for. You want a dirt cheap rock bottom machine, you're not going to get a full XP install disc. And the sad part is, the same a-holes who buy these types of machines would never be the ones to try to reinstall from the crappy recovery CD. They'll coerce some poor friend/relative/neighbor in to fighting with it.
Thanks, I'll check that out :)
I'd never heard o Brawndo. I use Power Bar products, and Gator Aid, when I run. I guess I'll have to give Brawndo a try. Do you work for them, or are you just a satisfied customer?
Too bad.
You might still be able to reinstall, though. Someone mentioned below that a lot of machines give you the option of making a recovery CD or DVD. Often, these are created by copying a hidden partition on the hard drive that holds the installation files. So, if you don't see a utility to create a recovery disk, run fdisk (or gparted, or whatever partitioning utility comes on the Kubuntu CD) and see if there is a second partition. You may be able to reinstall off of that.
Also, with some manufacturers you can use any CD to reinstall. Dell CDs, for example, don't care what machine you are installing on, as long as it is a Dell that was sold with an XP license. If you can manage to find someone else with a CD from the same manufacturer, you may be able to use that to legally reinstall Windows.
Or, you could try calling the manufacturer and see if they will send you a replacement. Don't give up if the first person tells you no. Ask to speak with their supervisor. You paid for that XP license when you bought the machine. Use it as a chance to work on your social engineering skills.
As a last resort, you could look on the torrent sites for an ISO of the recovery CD for your machine. This is not pirating, as you are reinstalling the software you purchased with the computer. The proof of license should be on a sticker on the bottom of your laptop.
Of course, trying to get your brother to switch to Kubuntu is a noble gesture, but if he is determined he wants Windows, it's better to help him get a usable XP system back. Or he may end up getting a machine with Vista on it. You sure don't want that.
Good for you for not helping him "pirate," but didn't his laptop come with XP? Why the need to "pirate?" Don't you have the "recovery disc" or whatever came with the machine?
That's not really what I asked. A person who bought a cheap Linux PC with the intention of putting Windows on it could not legally purchase and use an OEM version, unless they also purchased a MB (or a hard drive, I believe, but that may not be accurate).
Sure all that shareware crap subsidizes the cost of the OEM license. It really pisses me off that Dell includes shit like Google Toolbar and trial versions of Office One Note on business machines. In fact, machines with copies of One Note that have not been "activated" will cause the machine to fail the WGA check when you try to update your legitimate copy of Office. And google actually pops up a survey page when you uninstall their tool bar asking you why.
All that is beside the point - if a person is looking for a cheap Windows PC, buying a machine with Linux on it then formatting the hard drive and installing Windows isn't going to save you any money, unless you have an unused retail Windows license hanging around and just need to replace the hardware. I doubt very much that using an OEM license on a new machine would be legal, but could be wrong.
Don't you mean mkfs?
That's actually kind of funny, it's traditionally been the other way around - buy a cheap windows machine and extend it with Linux.
What are you going to put on that machine? Is the money you save buying it with Linux on it enough to pay for a retail version of Windows?
Thank you. It is extremely important to be clear about what is copyrightable, as well as what Hasbro is alleging.
Some of the people in this thread who were arguing that copyright was not relevant seemed to base that belief on the fact that - as you said - the ideas described by the copyrighted text are not copyrightable themselves. This is correct, but they had not bothered to look at the facts of this particular case, and see that Hasbro is claiming infringement on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules and their players dictionary.
So, while their points may have been correct, they were not applicable to this particular case.
I'm sorry, I do not recall saying that in any of the messages I have posted in this thread. If you can point me at a comment of mine where I suggested that Hasbro is claiming copyright infringement on the game board, please do so and I will post a comment correcting that mis-statement.
In the comment you replied to, I discussed "infringement of their copyrights on the rules and the official game dictionaries." That is a copy/paste. That is the copyright infringement Hasbro is alleging. Sorry for the confusion.
I think that is exactly what Hasbro will argue, and I have to say in my unlearned opinion they have a good case. I mentioned in another comment that my impression - based on the similarity of the name and the game itself - was that they had sought and secured the necessary licensing. If I had come across those links on the Scrabulous site to Hasbro's rules and official Player Dictionary, I would have been further convinced that it was an official Hasbro product.
Just my opinion, but the trademark claim is the one part of this I think they have a strong case for.
Especially considering a lot of people will be staying in the Greater Vancouver area and commuting to and from Whistler to attend events. I don't think there is enough hotel space in Whistler to accommodate everyone attending events there.
They are off the hook for the claim of trademark infringement. There is still the matter of Hasbro's claim that they infringed on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules of the game Scrabble, as well as the text of their Official Scrabble Player's Dictionary.
Wow, you put a lot of effort in to that response. It's really too bad you didn't put that effort in to reading the actual complaint, as I suggested you do in another comment.
I read the complaint instead. I figured it had more relevance.
You really need to read that complaint. Here, I'll whet your appetite:
They sure throw that word "copyright" around a lot for a lawsuit that has nothing to do with copyright.
You see, they are saying that
You may completely disagree with their claim that their copyrights were infringed, but your assertion that they are not claiming copyright infringement is simply wrong.
Ah, yes. Now I get it. That makes perfect sense.
Thank you.
Well, yeah, I suppose. But drinking excessive amounts of water specifically can be fatal, due to the imbalance of electrolytes it creates. So a game that promotes drinking water to excess is no better than a game that promotes drinking beer to excess. Either one can kill you.
That part seemed bazaar to me too. I had to read it two or three times, and I'm still not sure I understand it.
Hasbro seems to be saying the defendants were claiming that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark of Hasbro. For what purpose I don't know, other than to confuse the player in to thinking it is an official Hasbro game.
This is one of the reasons I believe Hasbro has (or rather had) a legitimate trademark claim.
The meta tags part is problematic. The name of the city I live in has been trademarked, as is the name of a very high profile event we will be hosting in a couple of years. But I use these trademarked words in the meta tags of web page I've made featuring photos I've taken of the city and venues being constructed for the event. What else am I supposed to do? If people are looking for photos of the city, or the buildings being constructed for the event, I want them to be able to find mine.
At the same time, I can understand why I should be prevented from registering a domain featuring these trademarked words, if the domain and the site itself confuse the visitor in to thinking that my site is officially connected to the event or the city.
So I guess my opinion - for what it's worth (which isn't much) - is that there is nothing wrong with using trademarked words in the meta tags of your website, provided your site does not confuse the people visiting it in to thinking you are officially connected to the entity that owns the trademark. In this case, I really think Hasbro has a reasonable trademark claim, especially given the defendants were linking to official, copyrighted Hasbro materials like the rule book and dictionaries, the bazaar statement that "Scrabulous" is a registered trademark belonging to Hasbro and the name Scrabulous itself.
Since they have changed the name and (apparently) removed the links to Hasbro's copyrighted materials, that leaves Hasbro with a claim of copyright infringement for linking to those materials in the past.
It will be interesting to see if this ends it or if they continue to pursue litigation.
Yeah, they may as well have just gone ahead and used a car analogy.
Thanks for posting that, I hadn't seen it.
I'm not disagreeing with your interpretation or opinion, but I'll just remind you I was quoting from the complaint. So, you're objection to the phrase "The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection ..." really should be directed at Hasbro.
That is exactly what Hasbro is alleging, that there are no official rules to the game Scrabulous, and - in the past - when players clicked the link for the rules, they are redirected to the official rules of Scrabble, for which Hasbro holds the copyright. Same with the official game dictionary.
It's all in their complaint. If you have not already read it, I encourage you to do so. It isn't very long. (Probably shorter than all of the comments in this thread insisting Hasbro is not claiming copyright infringement, which it is).
No, I was quoting directly from the complaint. I've quoted further elsewhere in this thread the reason Hasbro considers this relevant, so I will simply encourage you to read my other comments or the complaint itself.
Again, Hasbro is claiming infringement on the copyrights they hold on the text of the rules to the game of Scrabble, the text of the game dictionary and violation of their trademark. All three are part of their complaint.
So is apple. So is windows. But Apple and Windows are registered trademarks.
The complaint claims that Scrabble has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office since the 1950s for things ranging from "equipment and accessories for playing a board game," scoring devices, accessories such as dice cups, cubes and timers and - notably - "computer game programs" (registered November 26, 2002 under registration number 2,654,348).
I have no idea whether or not any of these trademarks have been challenged, but there they are. Hasbro is saying they are the only ones who can use the word Scrabble to describe a board game, or its electronic counterpart, and that "Scrabulous" is confusingly similar.
I have to say I would tend to agree. My girlfriend was/is addicted to the game and I had assumed, since they were using such a similar name, they must have worked out a licensing agreement with the trademark holder.
If I had gone so far as to click on the link for the rules or dictionary, and been redirected to Hasbros official, copyrighted documents, I would have been convinced this was a Hasbro product. It's this kind of confusion trademark law is designed to prevent.
As for their allegations of copyright infringement, I agree that is not so cut and dried. Especially considering the can of worms you open by claiming that linking to a publicly available document on the web can be construed as copyright infringement.
But Hasbro is saying the defendants directed the players to the official, copyrighted Hasbro rules when looking for the rules to Scrabulous, so I guess they are saying it was no different than copying the rulebook and calling it the Rules of Scrabulous.
I don't know, IANAL and all that, but it should be interesting to see how that part plays out.
True, they tend to throw as much as possible at the wall to see what will stick. But if you read through the claim, infringement of their copyrights on the rules and the official game dictionaries is actually a very significant part of it. They are alleging the defendants linked to official Hasbro resources (like their rules), as they had not created their own like resources.
And I know that opens another can of worms (i.e. if you put it up on the web, how can linking to it be copyright infringement) but I think they are going to argue that these guys copied their game, and when players go looking for the rules, they are directed to Hasbro's rules. When they need a game dictionary, they are directed to Hasbro's dictionary. So they are using their written, copyrighted materials without permission.
I guess an analogy would be when an actor needs his lines, and you direct him to a copy of Citizen Kane, if he performs it line-for-line without permission you are violating the copyright of that work.
The same could be said for a song, or a novel, and I never stated different. The GP said "The look of the board, unlike the rules of the game, CAN be copyrighted." That is not correct. The rules can be copyrighted just like any other written work.
Hasbro's complaint states that there are no official rules for Scrabulous. 'A user not already familiar with the rules of the SCRABBLE crossword game would not know how to play "scrabulous."
'On information and belief, until earlier this year, defendants included on their website hyperlinks to official SCRABBLE webpages, resources such as the official SCRABBLE rules ...' (emphasis mine)
I could keep typing this up for you, or you could read it yourself.
Hasbro is claiming infringement of their copyrights, including the copyrights they hold on the written rules of the game. They may be full of it, but that is what they are alleging.
You close your quotes after the comma, Einstein.
From here
That was the case in the first article - the woman had taken part in a "water drinking contest." The second article describes soldiers who died when they drank large amounts of water after long periods of exercise. The key thing is to remember to replace those electrolytes.
Yeah, a little I guess. I have no idea what a beer bong game would involve, other than drinking excessive amounts of beer. My point was that replacing beer with something that can also kill you if you drink it to excess shows someone didn't think this through very thoroughly.
Actually, drinking too much water can be just as dangerous as drinking too much beer. People have died from drinking too much water.
I think it's extremely irresponsible of the "parents and lawmakers" to encourage behavior that may lead to water intoxication
According to the complaint, the rules can and have been copyrighted since 1948 under registration No. AA 104547.
Read the damn complaint. It alleges trademark and copyright infringement.
If you read the complaint, it's both.
I'll quote some of section24,
Hasbro is the owner of the following valid and subsisting copyrights registered in the Copyright Office:
A. The Rules of Playing SCRABBLE were first registered for copyright protection under registration No. AA 104547, published on December 1, 1948 ...
B. The Gameboard for SCRABBLE ws first registered for copyright protection under gegistration No. K 18528 and published on December 1, 1948 ...
C. The Official SCRABBLE Players Dictionary ...
25. The SCRABBLE name is inherently distinctive and has been registered as a trademark in the United States Patent and Trademark Office ...
I'll stop here but you get the idea. To the guy above who says he's a game designer, Hasbro's suit seems to imply that the rules of the game, as well as the layout of the board, can be copyrighted.
This contradicts your comment
I suppose they can allege whatever they want in their complaint, but they do quote registration numbers.