BoardGameGeek News

The Island Settlers post was fascinating. This line in particular is quite telling:

--> Either way: Take your game off the net and we will not follow up with court action. Leave your game on the net and we will proceed.


AKA - we don't care if you are breaking the law. We're going to sue you anyway unless you do what we say.

Shame on Catan GmbH to be engaging in such blatant bullying. I keep hoping for a law that will fine copyright holder for this type of copyright abuse but sadly, this will never happen.

This is at least as bad as Games Workshop's actions.

Anyone know any more about the Japanese magazine game?

the dude blatantly copying and distributing a game in its entirety is not "in the right" in this situation, regardless of whether Catan GMBH's approach to the problem was reasonable or not. comparing this to GW smashing original fan content is laughable.

Anyone know any more about the Japanese magazine game?

from what I understand from copyright law, it's also not illegal, and is even permissable, even if it feels a little shady.
Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, so as long as the artwork wasn't copied and didn't directly lift anything from the published rule books, the threat of suing over something that isn't standing on sound legal footing, is simply a bully tactic.

Generally speaking, it's bullying when the stronger entity hits harder than they need or have a right to.

Before the iPod Apple was the "victim" and Microsoft the "bully." Now Microsoft is fading and Apple is the bully with all the BS stunts they pull with DRM, the iTunes store, how they handle app makers, etc. etc. They got big and now they behave exactly how MS acted when they got big. And I'm an Apple fan. But I know bully tactics when I see them.

It's pretty simple. The stronger party generally has more moral responsibility because they have more control, more power and can do more harm.

Am I a lawyer? No... but I can understand basic morality.

Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles. Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author’s expression in literary, artistic, or musical form.

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.

If your game includes any written element, such as instructions or directions, the Copyright Office recommends that you apply to register it as a literary work. Doing so will allow you to register all copyrightable parts of the game, including any pictorial elements. When the copyrightable elements of the game consist predominantly of pictorial matter, you should apply to register it as a work of the visual arts.

And assuming that Catan is in the right, as far as I am concerned they are not a bully; they are legally and vigorously defending their property. You might as well say that Wal-Mart is a bully because they prosecuted a poor, helpless shoplifter.

Isn't the difference here that they are morally correct?

Looking at this thread vs. the rest of the Geek, I find it amusing that many people apparently think it's reprehensible to distribute an unlicensed mobile phone knock-off for free because you're a fan (like in this case), but on the other hand, if you distribute an unlicensed mobile phone knock-off and charge for it (as in, actually financially profit from other people's work) it's perfectly fine.

Am I the only one who finds this... odd?

While I can appreciate that you have quoted the law, and then shared your opinion, it does not answer what I posted earlier. Does anyone have any case law that shows a precedent in a case like this. I, and every other layman can read the law, but I will readily admit that that does not qualify me to argue the case. I assume that you would agree that, absent being a lawyer yourself, it does not qualify you to do so either. Please understand that this is in no way meant to be an insult. Is there anyone on here that can cite case law in this area that is pertinent to this case.? No opinion, not specific sections of the law, but actual case law?

Bullying would be to say:
"Even if you stop doing it, we are going to take legal action against you."

Instead they told the app people "If you don't stop, we're going to take legal action."

Sounds more than reasonable to me. If the app people are confident that their rip off is technically legal, they should welcome the opportunity to have a court find for them. If they are not confident, they at least made money on it for a while.

I fail to see what morality has to do with modern law...

I fail to understand what the App maker did wrong, actually.

Nic, despite what you might believe, it is not stealing. Listen, games are inspired by other games all the time. This one is a bit closer than most, but from what I understand the app maker made a genuine effort to ask what specifically was not legally acceptable and was ignored.