The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Hasbro's lawyers need to learn to respect copyright law.
BTW: I've already emailed the dude in the article.
If you read the email Hasbro sent him, it has a nice disclaimer in it - and nowhere do they actually state that he is violating any law. The fuckers!
No, they don't own the trademark on the name of the game - nobody can. You're free to create your own game and call it risk:
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
So Hasbro just fucked themselves - hard - because now a million nerds know they can make their own Risk game, even call it Risk, and there's nothing Hasbro can do about it.
Ditto with Monopoly.
Let the Clone Wars begin.
Re:So, how long until he's sued?
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 1
Good point - its hard keeping all the con artists straight w/o a program, there are so many of them. Just today we had to add Hasbro, for trying to claim copyright on game rules for Risk, when the govt says you can't copyright game rules.
Perhaps most laywers need to add IANAL to their business cards.
Re:It really works too unfortunately,
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 1
What about:
The angle of the dangle is equally proportional to the heat of the meat provided that the urge to surge remains constant
... except in Soviet Russia, there the meat heats YOU!
You're just going to forget everything you learned as soon as you complete the final exam.
Isn't that what happens anyway for the majority of people? They can't remember where they put the damn remote (something they think of a REALLY important), how are they going to remember anything else? A lot of of people go through the degree mill to get a piece of paper, not because they really are interested in a particular field. And that's why profs spend so much time feeling like they're beating their heads against the wall - students who want to learn are a pleasure and a challenge; students out for that piece of paper are only good to sleep with - after all, its the only way to get them to give a fuck.
Re:So, how long until he's sued?
on
Singing Science
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Hey, Valente, notw that you're retired, go back in your hole. You know damn well that educational use/performance by a teacher in front of his students is specifically exempt from it in the copyright act, as part of "fair use."
Your link doesn't make that point. Nowhere does it state a statute of law that makes it a requirement that any business maximize shareholder value. All it does is argue the basis that people can make different arguments, and, as always, soe if they're not happy. But that' the same with anything. If I'm not happy with your post, I have the right to sue - I just have no legal basis.
If it were a requiremet to maximize shareholder value, SCO would have been sued out of existence long ago. Also, companies whose stock price falls for no apparent reason would also be sued.
The simple fact is there is no such law in the books.
Ther is nothing in Title 17 that allows for copyrighting game rules.
You can't copyright the the actual rules of a game, only the documents you use to express those rules. IOW, you can copyright the form in which you've written them up, but that's it. Anyone is free to implement the same rules, using different text.
You can TRADEMARK a board design and the actual game pieces you make, but that's it. Again, anyone else is free to implement their version, using a different design and game pieces. I seriously doubt that Hasbro's version of Risk has an actual map of the world underneath (I have both the board and computer versions, and the world they show is NOT the real world,or even a decent representation of it).
In other words, Hasbro needs to to realize that the internet gives everyone the power to search here and get the facts.
If you'd rather read a summary about game law, direct from the government, go here instead.
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form. Copyright protection does not extend to any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in the development, merchandising, or playing of a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles.
Some material prepared in connection with a game may be subject to copyright if it contains a sufficient amount of literary or pictorial expression. For example, the text matter describing the rules of the game, or the pictorial matter appearing on the gameboard or container, may be registrable.
In order to register the copyrightable portions of a game, you must send the Library of Congress, Copyright Office, 101 Independence Avenue S.E., Washington, D.C. 20559-6000, the following elements in the same envelope or package:
So Hasbro can go fuck themselves. The guy should sue, as this was an obvious attempt at intimidation. They do NOT own the exclusive rights to RISK-style board games.
For the average slashdotter, who_is_Marlon_Brando() returns "isn't he that fat guy who had a short spot in some baby boomer movie or other as Superman's father or something because he was once a famus actor?" For many of the rest, it returns a null string.
Actually, I was doing research on early presentations of the crucifiction myth in various cultures. It was obvious that some nearby pages were missing, having been crudely torn out.
At first I thought it had been done quickly "probably to escape the watchful eyes of the librarians"
Surprise, surprise, when I went to the front desk to report it, I ran into the librarian who was responsible for the "censoring". "Its a public library, and children might see it." Sure enough, back in the stacks I found other volumes similarly mutilated.
I've seen dictionaries in public libraries where people have ripped out the pages those two words were found on, as well as "cunt". At least they can't do that with the online version.
Not only that - but to work, these computers are all going to have to communicate their info to each other in real time, and then to the computers depending on them for the signatures.
So now anyone can DoS the whole internet in under 2 seconds by sending a virus to 1 computer.
these numbers are based upon anonymous statistical survey
You need a NAME to survey the person. Even if the data are later compiled and all identifiers removed, someone has to do the interviews. Besides, if you read the survey, this is not a survey of crime victims. It is a survey of people, asing aobut their experience over a certain period of time. Most are NOT crime victims. The reason they do it this way - because they have no legal way of doing it otherwise.
The survey would be cast as "junk science" in any other field.
Why do you insist on continuing to deny the obvious?
Its not a question of clutching at straws. Its a fact that most employees don't have access to that data.
Guess you don't know that even employees who DO have access to names, addresses, and case files have their access monitored... and can be fired if they go snooping where they're not supposed to.
There have been too many incidents of, for example, cops snooping into the personal files of ex-girlfriends trying to dig up something for a little bit of "leverage". The controls that are in place would freak you out. All accesses are logged. All. Electronic files. Paperwork. Everything.
If you're a cop, you WANT that sort of logging, to protect you against unjust accusations. Cops don't like Internal Affairs, but they REALLY don't like the stupid prick who gets IA breathing down THEIR necks.
A "survey" is only as good as its methodology, and a big part of that is choosing the sample. We know the sample is flawed - ergo, so is the survey. Idem that a survey can't replace actual stats. This is "feel-good" stuff from the DoJ.
This also makes no sense at all. The purpose of a PVR is to be able to have a selection of the shows that you enjoy available at the time when you want to watch TV. If there is a lot of "drek" out there, such that it is hard to find the type of show that you enjoy--nonviolent documentaries on science or history, perhaps--then you have a greater reason to want a PVR, which will select those rare shows for you, even if they air while you are at work or asleep, and make them available for you to watch at your leisure.
For most people, you're right. But that's because they've become dependent - addicted - to TV, many to the point where it interferes with their daily lives, and their relationships with the people around them. We don't bother about it because we're so used to it.
Nixon resigned because he was about to be impeached. And all of the articles of impeachment concerned the Watergate coverup, not the conduct of the war. Twice, Americans were offered a clear choice at the polls between a candidate who favored continuing the war and one who favored prompt withdrawal: Nixon vs. Humphrey and Nixon vs. McGovern. In both cases, they chose Nixon.
They also chose Bush. But the majority want out of Iraq NOW, and if they can find something else to go after Mr Chimp with, they'll settle for that.
McGovern was a joke candidate. You can't be serious. His platform was naive - it went way too far way too fast, promising radical social change. He should have promised less, delivered, and built on that. In the end, the anti-war message took the hit. It also didn't help that the "dirty tricks" gang brought out the whole ECT thing on his running mate at a time when mental illness had a serious stigma attached to it. Besides, we've ssen from recent history that the voters get it more wrong than right, and spend the next few years regretting it. They were fed up with the war. The most popular shows on TV (eg - shows like All In The Family) were getting their audiences by lampooning the "war effort" and the stupidity of blind patriotism - Archie Bunkerism.
The parallels between the two wars, and the type of people who support the president in both cases, is particularly illuminating by a quick exam of the quotes from that show, which sound like they could come from a Bush supporter today.
"God don't make no mistakes. That's how he got to be God" "It ain't supposed to make sense; it's faith. Faith is something that you believe that nobody in his right mind would believe" - Archie Bunker
- compared to today's faith-based administration...
" Little boys who play with dolls grow up to be other boys' roommates" "I never said a guy who wears glasses is a queer. A guy who wears glasses is a four-eyes; a guy who's a fag is a queer." - Archie Bunker
If you just wait a few days then whatever it is you were looking for finds its way back to the front page.
So its official - slashdot is now like a septic tank or politics - the really big turds keep floating to the top, you flush and they don't stay down...
Thanks. Obviously some of the mods don't share your sense of humour. Iguess that's what happens when you insult the KKK by insinuating they're dumb enough to aid Bush:-)
You wouldn't be a Barry Manilow fan, would you? I thought they were extinct. I think I can get good bucks on eBay if I capture one.
Lets see, "ACME GUIDE TO TRAPPING A BMF (Barry Manilow Fan)"
a bad haircut lounge lizard outfit poor taste 8x11 black and white photos
directions:
start an argument saying Tom Jones is "teh best evah" wait for Barry Manilow fan to come out of hiding ... and wait... ... and wait... ... and wait... ... because there ain't no such animal, dummy! See the "ACME GUIDE TO FOSSILS (Living and Dead)"
You can't really prove anything by correlation. Quite a few things changed over that tiime period. Levitt and Dubner, in "Freakonomics" [amazon.com] make a pretty persuasive case that the decline in crime is due to easier access to abortion.
Good point. I would expect easier access to abortion to have a direct economic spin-off effect as women are no longer constrained to part-time motherhood and part-time jobs. Such is the way freaky connections intertwine:-)
What we can say, however, is that if violent TV, movies, and videogames do not actually reduce real-world violence, then any pro-violence effect of these influences must be small relative to other social, economic, and demographic factors
What has always "gotten" me is that violence is perceived as entertaining. Like boxing. Watching 2 people trying to beat each other unconscious is no more valid as entertainment than a cock-fight or a snuff film. We've banned the latter 2 - why not boxing? Wrestling? Well, everyone knows its fixed (except the "true believers", but they'll believe anything:-)
So are you claiming that the US did not have a higher murder rate than Canada prior to violent US TV shows? It's a bit risky to compare statistics collected with different methodology, but this chart doesn't seem to support the notion that a greater crime rate in the US than Canada is a particularly modern phenomenon. Looking at these data, one would tend to ascribe the difference in crime rates to long-standing cultural differences rather than to modern entertainments.
No but its interesting that the rate has been increasing as more Canadians get access to more American programming, no? There's been a lot of deregulation of cross-border content, and the growth of cable companies over the last 30 years that also offer American content, seems to correlate well with the graph you offered up.
Dude, these are surveys. They're NOT conducted by official police agents gathering facts. they're conducted by civilians, who have no need or right to access rape victims names. Those files are usually sealed by the courts. Same with paedophiles - the names of the victims are expurgiated from all public docs.
My initial point which we've gone well away from, was that I didn't see any real need for anyone to buy a PVR because there is so much drek out there. It gives a really distorted view of the world. For example, we allow all sorts of violence, but we don't show normal healthy sex. Which do you think would disturb a kid more - walking in on Daddy giving it to Mommy with his dick or an axe? We can show the latter, but not the former.
As for the connection between 9/11 and violence on TV, check out the correlation between "patriotic" movies, where American troops or American heroes win out the day been shown prior to initial war movements. This was painfully obvious prior to the earlier Desert Storm operation by Bush Sr. Food for thought, no?
gain, this is pretty foolish. The fact that the buzzword "road rage" hadn't been coined doesn't mean that people didn't get angry over being cut off on the highway 20 years ago. As somebody who actually was around, and driving, 20 years ago, I can assure you that they did.
So was I, but I had never heard about it degenerating into gun battles. Now there are some places where people drive "extra-polite" because they don't want to get shot. That's nutso!
Have they quit teaching history in the schools? We fought a bullshit war in Viet Nam, with its own atrocities, 20 years ago, and fought it for considerably longer than we have been fighting this one. People today are upset about white phosphorous? Back then, we had that and napalm, too. The government didn't fall. The antiwar candidate, George McGovern was defeated in one of the greatest political landslides in recent memory.
IIRC Nixon did have to resign. Ford took his place. He lost the next election because of his blanket pardon of Nixon.
Do you really believe that people were all that upset about Watergate on its own? It was because it was just more of the same. People were fed up. They wanted Nixon gone, and they were going to seize on anything to do it. The plumbers gave them the opening they needed.
<i>Now, because of the administration's continuing advertising campaign against its own people, they've got everyone too scared to say anything, for fear of being seen as disloyal. </i> Oh, and that never happened before? I won't even try to educate you, but you might find it informative to see the movie "Good night and good luck."
Did I ever say it didn't? Lets see... Joe McCarthy and Edgar Hoover immediately spring to mind. Nixon's "laundry/shit list" and dirty tactics/disinformation squads. The whole "missile gap" thing under Kennedy. The "red menace". The Munro Doctrine. The lies about needing to nuke Japan. The interement of ethnics of asiatic descent during the war - just in case. It just goes on and on... no wonder the US is perceived as the Great Satan in some parts of the world. We love you but...
The use of the media, the self-censorship by the media in the last 4 years, the cooperation of reporters who should have known better... I mean, where do you start? Faux News? Its not JUST the violence. Its the pervasive misuse of the media.
For example, the rest of the world got to see the evidence on TV that the "aluminium tubes" were definitely not for processing nuclear material, then they got to see Colin Powell get up and lie through his teeth about it in the UN an hour later. I saw it. So did pretty much everyone outside the USA. But unless you were near a border station and could catch a Canadian TV News feed, or grab the BBC off the net, yo
Slashdot Mirror
Still a half-decent deal.
Here's what the copyright office has to say about it: http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html
Hasbro's lawyers need to learn to respect copyright law.
BTW: I've already emailed the dude in the article.
If you read the email Hasbro sent him, it has a nice disclaimer in it - and nowhere do they actually state that he is violating any law. The fuckers!
The idea for a game is not protected by copyright. The same is true of the name or title given to the game and of the method or methods for playing it.
So Hasbro just fucked themselves - hard - because now a million nerds know they can make their own Risk game, even call it Risk, and there's nothing Hasbro can do about it.
Ditto with Monopoly.
Let the Clone Wars begin.
Good point - its hard keeping all the con artists straight w/o a program, there are so many of them. Just today we had to add Hasbro, for trying to claim copyright on game rules for Risk, when the govt says you can't copyright game rules.
Perhaps most laywers need to add IANAL to their business cards.
Isn't that what happens anyway for the majority of people? They can't remember where they put the damn remote (something they think of a REALLY important), how are they going to remember anything else? A lot of of people go through the degree mill to get a piece of paper, not because they really are interested in a particular field. And that's why profs spend so much time feeling like they're beating their heads against the wall - students who want to learn are a pleasure and a challenge; students out for that piece of paper are only good to sleep with - after all, its the only way to get them to give a fuck.
Hey, Valente, notw that you're retired, go back in your hole. You know damn well that educational use/performance by a teacher in front of his students is specifically exempt from it in the copyright act, as part of "fair use."
Your link doesn't make that point. Nowhere does it state a statute of law that makes it a requirement that any business maximize shareholder value. All it does is argue the basis that people can make different arguments, and, as always, soe if they're not happy. But that' the same with anything. If I'm not happy with your post, I have the right to sue - I just have no legal basis.
If it were a requiremet to maximize shareholder value, SCO would have been sued out of existence long ago. Also, companies whose stock price falls for no apparent reason would also be sued.
The simple fact is there is no such law in the books.
You can't copyright the the actual rules of a game, only the documents you use to express those rules. IOW, you can copyright the form in which you've written them up, but that's it. Anyone is free to implement the same rules, using different text.
You can TRADEMARK a board design and the actual game pieces you make, but that's it. Again, anyone else is free to implement their version, using a different design and game pieces. I seriously doubt that Hasbro's version of Risk has an actual map of the world underneath (I have both the board and computer versions, and the world they show is NOT the real world,or even a decent representation of it).
In other words, Hasbro needs to to realize that the internet gives everyone the power to search here and get the facts.
If you'd rather read a summary about game law, direct from the government, go here instead.
So Hasbro can go fuck themselves. The guy should sue, as this was an obvious attempt at intimidation. They do NOT own the exclusive rights to RISK-style board games.For the average slashdotter, who_is_Marlon_Brando() returns "isn't he that fat guy who had a short spot in some baby boomer movie or other as Superman's father or something because he was once a famus actor?" For many of the rest, it returns a null string.
after all, Roland Pipsqueak could have been a contender! [/rocky balboa]
At first I thought it had been done quickly "probably to escape the watchful eyes of the librarians"
Surprise, surprise, when I went to the front desk to report it, I ran into the librarian who was responsible for the "censoring". "Its a public library, and children might see it." Sure enough, back in the stacks I found other volumes similarly mutilated.
You need a dictionary - you spelled "scum-sucking bottom-feeding cocksucker" wrong again. Oh, and you spelled "thief" wrong too.
I've seen dictionaries in public libraries where people have ripped out the pages those two words were found on, as well as "cunt". At least they can't do that with the online version.
So, how long before someone says they should be boycotted becasue they don't promote "family values"
So now anyone can DoS the whole internet in under 2 seconds by sending a virus to 1 computer.
Must be a full moon out there somewhere ...
Its not a question of clutching at straws. Its a fact that most employees don't have access to that data.
Guess you don't know that even employees who DO have access to names, addresses, and case files have their access monitored ... and can be fired if they go snooping where they're not supposed to.
There have been too many incidents of, for example, cops snooping into the personal files of ex-girlfriends trying to dig up something for a little bit of "leverage". The controls that are in place would freak you out. All accesses are logged. All. Electronic files. Paperwork. Everything.
If you're a cop, you WANT that sort of logging, to protect you against unjust accusations. Cops don't like Internal Affairs, but they REALLY don't like the stupid prick who gets IA breathing down THEIR necks.
A "survey" is only as good as its methodology, and a big part of that is choosing the sample. We know the sample is flawed - ergo, so is the survey. Idem that a survey can't replace actual stats. This is "feel-good" stuff from the DoJ.
For most people, you're right. But that's because they've become dependent - addicted - to TV, many to the point where it interferes with their daily lives, and their relationships with the people around them. We don't bother about it because we're so used to it.
They also chose Bush. But the majority want out of Iraq NOW, and if they can find something else to go after Mr Chimp with, they'll settle for that.
McGovern was a joke candidate. You can't be serious. His platform was naive - it went way too far way too fast, promising radical social change. He should have promised less, delivered, and built on that. In the end, the anti-war message took the hit. It also didn't help that the "dirty tricks" gang brought out the whole ECT thing on his running mate at a time when mental illness had a serious stigma attached to it. Besides, we've ssen from recent history that the voters get it more wrong than right, and spend the next few years regretting it. They were fed up with the war. The most popular shows on TV (eg - shows like All In The Family) were getting their audiences by lampooning the "war effort" and the stupidity of blind patriotism - Archie Bunkerism.
The parallels between the two wars, and the type of people who support the president in both cases, is particularly illuminating by a quick exam of the quotes from that show, which sound like they could come from a Bush supporter today.
- compared to today's faith-based administration ...
Lets see, "ACME GUIDE TO TRAPPING A BMF (Barry Manilow Fan)"
Dude, these are surveys. They're NOT conducted by official police agents gathering facts. they're conducted by civilians, who have no need or right to access rape victims names. Those files are usually sealed by the courts. Same with paedophiles - the names of the victims are expurgiated from all public docs.
My initial point which we've gone well away from, was that I didn't see any real need for anyone to buy a PVR because there is so much drek out there. It gives a really distorted view of the world. For example, we allow all sorts of violence, but we don't show normal healthy sex. Which do you think would disturb a kid more - walking in on Daddy giving it to Mommy with his dick or an axe? We can show the latter, but not the former.
As for the connection between 9/11 and violence on TV, check out the correlation between "patriotic" movies, where American troops or American heroes win out the day been shown prior to initial war movements. This was painfully obvious prior to the earlier Desert Storm operation by Bush Sr. Food for thought, no?
So was I, but I had never heard about it degenerating into gun battles. Now there are some places where people drive "extra-polite" because they don't want to get shot. That's nutso!
IIRC Nixon did have to resign. Ford took his place. He lost the next election because of his blanket pardon of Nixon.
Do you really believe that people were all that upset about Watergate on its own? It was because it was just more of the same. People were fed up. They wanted Nixon gone, and they were going to seize on anything to do it. The plumbers gave them the opening they needed.
Did I ever say it didn't? Lets see ... Joe McCarthy and Edgar Hoover immediately spring to mind. Nixon's "laundry/shit list" and dirty tactics/disinformation squads. The whole "missile gap" thing under Kennedy. The "red menace". The Munro Doctrine. The lies about needing to nuke Japan. The interement of ethnics of asiatic descent during the war - just in case. It just goes on and on ... no wonder the US is perceived as the Great Satan in some parts of the world. We love you but ...
The use of the media, the self-censorship by the media in the last 4 years, the cooperation of reporters who should have known better ... I mean, where do you start? Faux News? Its not JUST the violence. Its the pervasive misuse of the media.
For example, the rest of the world got to see the evidence on TV that the "aluminium tubes" were definitely not for processing nuclear material, then they got to see Colin Powell get up and lie through his teeth about it in the UN an hour later. I saw it. So did pretty much everyone outside the USA. But unless you were near a border station and could catch a Canadian TV News feed, or grab the BBC off the net, yo