>Neal Rogers wrote:
>
>>I would have to disagree with that based on my reading
>>of the fact sheet on games at the copyright office.
>>[http://www.loc.gov/copyright/fls/fl108.pdf]
>
>I am not a lawyer. You are not a lawyer. Ryan Dancy is not a
>lawyer. Therefore, we really aren't qualified to interpret the law
>anymore than Rush Limbaugh is qualified to be president.
>
>Furthermore, when people who are qualified tell us that the law is
>ambiguous, then we should believe them.
IMHO, when people who are qualified *and disinterested parties in the
sides of the debate* tell us that the law is ambiguous, then we
should believe them. so far, the only IP lawyers we've heard from
(albeit indirectly) are those who have a vested interest in, or at
least incentive for, the law being interpreted in a certain way.
thus, proceeding from the assumption that it is ambiguous and open to
interpretation is in their best interests, and strengthens their
case, should it come to court. ["Yes, Your Honor, we were perfectly
well aware that the law, as it stands, does not support our
interpretations, and is crystal clear on the matter."] i'm not
saying they're being dishonest. More likely, they are lawyers who
sincerely believe what they are saying, which is why they're willing
to give advice (and stand by it), and why they're involved in this
sort of situation in the first place (i.e., they believe that the law
is not clear on the point, and that this is how the law should be
interpreted).
i've talked to *one* IP lawyer, someone who also has extensive
experience with RPGs (in fact, he was an employee of an RPG company
for a while, for exactly those reasons). completely off-the-record,
and without seeing detailed legal briefs of WotC's positions, he felt
that IP law did *not* support the relatively broad interpretation of
ownership that WotC is following. from what i know of him, he had no
reason to have a vested interest in any of this [this was well before
WotC even started circulating rumors that they might make the system
open, and this person wasn't related to a company producing products
that in any way competed with WotC's products of the time]. now,
while it's true that he has less experience with the specific
question of which elements of D&D are ownable than the lawyers
employed by WotC, he *is* an experienced IP lawyer, specializing in
elements of copyright and trademark related to games (including
RPGs), so i have no reason to doubt his expertise in the broad case,
and i have reason to believe him over WotC's lawyers: he's a
disinterested third party.
woodelf <*>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.home.net/woodelph/
What's new?
Um, cee over lambda?
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
