From: "lizard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Would such a suit actually stand, though?
My opinion?
If the RPG system in question is sufficiently complex, contains sufficient
material of a "fictional" or creative nature beyond the math of the rules,
and if the parts used in the infringing product are either copies of or
clear derivitives from that creative, non-rules content, then the suit will
be successful.
D&D is particularly challenged in this area because so much of it is based
on public-domain content, and defending D&D might be more challenging than
defending L5R or Deadlands, but in certain specific cases, I am convinced it
can be done.
I suspect that a sustained lawsuit by a large company, able to tackle the
immense legal bills and numerous appeals that would be necessary, could
persuade the courts that the Copyright Office's >OPINION< that game rules
cannot be copyright is incorrect, just as was done in the 70's as regards
computer software. Title 17 itself is silent about the copyrightability of
game rules; the Copyright Office and the courts have examined this issue on
several occasions and have decided that Title 17 doesn't apply - but all of
those cases involved game rules that were primarily expressions of math, as
opposed to the largely fictional and creative concepts embodied in a typical
RPG. In fact, I suspect that the complexity of an RPG system would be
compared favorably to computer software and that a reasonable court would
find more similarities than differences and would extend the copyright
statute protections as a result.
The case I would really like to tackle would be the use of trademarks to
indicate compatibility. Unlike the Ford Motor Company's failure to defend
"Mustang" for floor mats, where the court basically said "floor mats are not
cars, and the Ford and Mustang trademarks are associated in the minds of
consumers with cars", I believe that we could make the case that adventures
and supplements for RPGs that indicate compatibility >do< constitute an
illegal dilution and misuse of the trademark, because the material the
trademark is associated with in the minds of consumers (i.e.: "game
content") is the >same< content that the 3rd party publishers are creating.
But in the real world, I doubt that either case will ever be brought to
trial because the costs to pursue either would be larger than the total
revenue generated by most companies in gaming.
Ryan
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
