I'm really hooked on this game...

This game would make a great iPod app. Alas, I'm not a programmer by a loooooooong shot, so it won't be me that does it....

But am I alone in thinking this would be a great game for the iPod...? Obviously, it could be re-themed/re-named to avoid legal issues...

In the meantime, is there anything available for the iPod that is like this?

Rethemed and renamed? That doesn't seem right at ALL! Much better to ask the publisher to release an i-version (although I wonder if there's really a big demand for this?). I agree, though, that it is a fun game!

In my opinion Bottle Imp has a good connection of game mechanic and theme. So, as designer, I don't like to see the theme changed.

But your argument for changing the theme is even poorer: 'to avoid legal issues'. It's ok for you to steal a car, if you change the color, add a spoiler, a.s.o? It's ok to steal your house by putting a name of somebody else on it?

What do you think, how game designers should pay their appartment, food, ... if it's ok to steal their creations?

In my opinion Bottle Imp has a good connection of game mechanic and theme. So, as designer, I don't like to see the theme changed.

But your argument for changing the theme is even poorer: 'to avoid legal issues'. It's ok for you to steal a car, if you change the color, add a spoiler, a.s.o? It's ok to steal your house by putting a name of somebody else on it?

What do you think, how game designers should pay their appartment, food, ... if it's ok to steal their creations?

But your argument for changing the theme is even poorer: 'to avoid legal issues'. It's ok for you to steal a car, if you change the color, add a spoiler, a.s.o? It's ok to steal your house by putting a name of somebody else on it?

Whoa! I'm not suggesting anyone steal your creation! Far from it, I'd like to see an app released sanctioned by whomever owns the rights to the game. Please don't misunderstand my point.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, I like the game so much that I wish someone would release a version on the iPod/iPhone, that's all.

The reason I mentioned "changing the theme" or whatever to avoid legal issues is the fact that, even here on BGG, I've seen games released over and over that employed a mechanic(s) from other previously released games. But those games obviously didn't have the same theme. I've seen this over and over. Were the games released that borrowed the mechanic(s) stealing from the creators of the original? I've not heard too much of an outcry if that's the case.

By no means am I hoping someone steals from you or anyone else. I just like the game enough to wish there was an app for it, and that's all I meant to say...and I obviously didn't do that very well.

My sincere apologies.

Thanks,
jrbentley

Your analogy fails. First, this is not definable as "theft". It's nothing like stealing a car. Not even close. Not like stealing a house either. The fact is this: In this day and age, with portable devices as a viable outlet for games and a massive demand for the games people love in the format they want, it's your opportunity to capitalize on or lose.

If you capitalize on it, you get to use the theming and intellectual property that you developed (theming based on a story written ages ago which I believe has passed into public domain).

If you don't, people ask for it enough that someone else makes their version in an entirely legal fashion, substituting the bits covered by copyright with new bits that don't open him to legal repercussions. Since game mechanics can't be copyrighted, as far as the law is concerned, this isn't stealing.

As far as the moral implications, yes, it sucks to work on something and then have someone knock it off. I know that from personal experience. However, that's forever the burden of the innovator. If you build anything worth anything, someone's going to try and make it better or better suited to a certain market you're missing. That's just the way it is in a free market.

As for how you're meant to pay your bills, that's easy: You stay on top of your market.

If you don't work to stay ahead of the guys who want to serve your customers in the way they want to be served, you've only got yourself to blame.

You describe a view of reality, like: people are dieing because of hunger. So it's legal to let people die.

But this is different from question of legal (or moral).



It's basic right of a creator to decide if, where and how his creation is published.

A game is more than just a game mechanic.
Because of words are not copyrighted, you can copy books, sell them after changing just a little bit?

Don't mistake computer programm code for the content.

Yes, that's true - and not.

For inventions you may have a patent for a while.
For creations you have creator's rights for your live and your legal heirs.

To make it better, doesn't mean to make the same in a better way. The creator has the right to distribute his creation, variants and follwers as well as to decide that it's not distributed.

Ok is to get inspiration from existing creations and to mak OWN CREATION. Otherwise the big marketing organizations could easily steal all creation because of using it's distribution.

The beginning is not the top, it's just the base.

On the top of the market are always non-creators, big distributors.

It's not only a question of seller and buyer. Creations are more than just goods.


Best, Guenter

I can hardly believe this discussion is happening, especially here on BGG! How can anyone believe that a designer's game is not their property? If they choose to sit on it and never release it again, that is their right! If it's in demand, a lot of people will just have to suck it up (until the game becomes public domain, of course).

Demand does not give anyone the right to copy the original game and release it. The original post comes across as someone who just wants to get the game in his hands, and is hoping some enterprising person is willing to steal the designer's rights and release it! I read and appreciate the follow-up clarifications, but then Pellbort seems to defend that very idea!

I understand the reality that someone can steal the design, even the graphics, print it off and sell it for a quick buck. That doesn't make it legal or right. Similarly for designing a knock-off and releasing it for iDevices. While someone might get away with it for a while, they shouldn't.

I can hardly believe this discussion is happening, especially here on BGG! How can anyone believe that a designer's game is not their property? If they choose to sit on it and never release it again, that is their right! If it's in demand, a lot of people will just have to suck it up (until the game becomes public domain, of course). Demand does not give anyone the right to copy the original game and release it. The original post comes across as someone who just wants to get the game in his hands, and is hoping some enterprising person is willing to steal the designer's rights and release it! I read and appreciate the follow-up clarifications, but then Pellbort seems to defend that very idea!

I understand the reality that someone can steal the design, even the graphics, print it off and sell it for a quick buck. That doesn't make it legal or right. Similarly for designing a knock-off and releasing it for iDevices. While someone might get away with it for a while, they shouldn't.

James,

The original post, with the "re-themed/re-named to avoid legal issues" in it, is the part that's problematic for me.to do it.

The game rethemed/renamed is still the same game. But I understand your intent.

Clearly, a similar game but with different art and rules (but perhaps sharing a similar mechanism) would be fine ... that would be a different game. But a game that rewords the rules and creates new art, but is in essence exactly the same game, would not be fine. The other posters, however, seem to suggest that such a knock-off is perfectly acceptable.

A few examples:
- Werewolf. A public domain game (Mafia), so I think anyone is free to publish variants.
- Set. Briefly, there was an iPhone app called 3-Tuple. It was the same game, published by some other company without the original publisher's permission. It was removed.
- Hanto. Initially, a Hive clone but with different insects. Since reworked into a superset of Hive -- different art, different options for rules (although I think you can select a combination of the options to recreate Hive rules, but with different art).
- Napster. Isn't it's history proving my point? Yes, the public has to suck it up: the original support of stealing music was ruled to be illegal. Clearly it is POSSIBLE to do it. But it isn't RIGHT (or legal) to do it.

Clearly, a similar game but with different art and rules (but perhaps sharing a similar mechanism) would be fine ... that would be a different game. But a game that rewords the rules and creates new art, but is in essence exactly the same game, would not be fine. The other posters, however, seem to suggest that such a knock-off is perfectly acceptable.

A few examples:
- Werewolf. A public domain game (Mafia), so I think anyone is free to publish variants.
- Set. Briefly, there was an iPhone app called 3-Tuple. It was the same game, published by some other company without the original publisher's permission. It was removed.
- Hanto. Initially, a Hive clone but with different insects. Since reworked into a superset of Hive -- different art, different options for rules (although I think you can select a combination of the options to recreate Hive rules, but with different art).
- Napster. Isn't it's history proving my point? Yes, the public has to suck it up: the original support of stealing music was ruled to be illegal. Clearly it is POSSIBLE to do it. But it isn't RIGHT (or legal) to do it.

I do not "endorse" piracy or copyright infringement. I do, however, acknowledge that it is easily a successful enough enterprise without my endorsement. A wise author would make his work available to whatever medium he can. If there's money to be made and an audience to reach, there's no reason not to reach it.

A book is more than words. It's a story.

Can I rewrite an old story in a way that uses different words but tells the same story? Yes, it happens ALL THE TIME. Is that stealing? The law says no, and the court of public opinion doesn't really care about such things if the rewritten story is considered to be better than the original.

The game mechanic is the one bit you can't protect.

All you can do is make sure your design, quality and materials are good, and that the whole package is different enough to make someone want to buy it over similar products.

Of course Thomas Rosanski asked me (and others) for permission: His page is absolutely non-commercial. He refuses advertisement banners. Same is yucata.de a great non-commercial site where well known games can be played for free. World doesn't exist just of money. But it's designers and publishers choice from whom a game is published. And money is only one possible purpose by creating something new.

And it's not fair from you to say that Thomas probably didn't ask for permission. What do you think, if somebody would say, you probably steal, rob, rape ...?

This is what I say and it's valid for games, too.

Maybe there is a different in European and American law. I used the story of R.L.Stevenson because he is long time dead (more than 70 years). If I wanted to make a game about Harry Potter, I had to ask J.K. Rowling for allowness.

And if somebody wants to rewrites the story with other words in Germany he has to ask for allowness. Only if it's satiric or something like a reply to the creation you can do so.

Yes, but a game is more than a game mechanic. In the same way that a story is more than a word or a couple of words.

No, not in Germany. German law protects each kind of creation. Condition is, that's new enough and personal creation. And that there is no special case of exception.

There is a discussion if a game is a creation. Some people see a game rules as just instructions. But it's easy to argue against.

What do you think, why do publishers pay money to game designers, if they could copy any game for free and sell it?

1. You can't say "How am I to pay my bills if someone is permitted to release a version of my game that I don't get paid for?" and then turn around and hand off the platitude that "Life isn't just about money." You're arguing from two entirely opposite points of view.

2. I don't know Thomas and wasn't making a reference to him or assuming anything about him. I was simply making a guess, a guess which is very safe given the state of copyright and the internet. Overwhelmingly, web versions of board and card games are unauthorized and rearranged to avoid lawsuit.

I think it's great that you're letting people play it for free on the web, and would happily install an authorized app on my phone/pad whether it cost me money or not. If you're letting people play it for free on the web, though, I can't imagine you're having such a hard time paying for bread and heat.

As for robbery and rape, I have no idea what you're trying to say. It smacks of reductio ad absurdum to me, but I can't be sure.

Anyway, the difference between Euro and North American copyright law doesn't mean a thing these days when we're talking about some guy in China or whatever who decides to rip off your stuff. Once it's out, it's out and you're going to waste a lot of resources trying to do anything about it.

So if someone changes everything but the mechanic, it's not the same game anymore? If so, then why would you object to someone retheming the game and releasing their own version? They'd be releasing a different game by your logic.

No, I know this, but the discussion is not: How to prevent from stealing. The discussion is about it's theft or not.

[q="Pellbort"]None of these things are true, and the law in this respect is trivial.

All someone has to do is code their version, release it on a torrent or megaupload or something, and remember not to put their real name and address off it. As long as they can do those things (and pretty much anyone can these days) they can piss on the law all day long. Is it right? No. Does it happen every single day? Yes.

I don't think we actually disagree on a lot of things under discussion here, I think you're just mistaking what my point is with what it isn't.

Good luck and best success to you. You've made a solid game and I hope you are lucky enough that nobody ever rips it off and you get to make a whole bunch of money on it.

For me it's a difference, if I spent money by my own decision or if somebody steals it from me.

You made a reference to his site, where he clearly writes, that he got permission, that's a non-commercial site and that he avoids commercial banner. But you wrote:

|: I'm guessing the designer doesn't see any money from this, and I'd
|: bet he wasn't asked for permission.

Why do you write such defaming nonsense?

Again you don't know about what you're talking.
A strange logik: people with less income don't give anything for free.

For you it's ok, to say that Thomas probably takes my property without permission. So it should be ok for you, to assume about your behauviour in same way, without any base.

I'm rather sure you understand this point.

Are you awake? I described this above, when my text was stolen from Austrian persons. Austria is neighboured to Germany. So it doesn't need China.

The discussion is not, if theft is possible or not.
The discussion is about: is it theft to publish a game without permission?

Yes, but a game is more than a game mechanic. In the same way that a story is more than a word or a couple of words.



Here I see a language problem, maybe my failure: The game mechanic versus a game mechanic.

(In Germany) you cannot protect one simple element, f.e. tapping cards.
It's free to be used in other way and other games.
But the combination of such elements is more than just the sum of these elements. This is protected. And this is the game.

Moreover the theme can be protected additionally, but this depends from single case.

Bottle Imp with another theme would be the same game (structure), but a different game, because the theme is important. It something like a variant (In German 'Bearbeitung', but there are too much translations for this word). (In Germany) it's basic designer right to make variants of his game. [1999 the highest court forbid to publish 'Laras Tochter', a prosecution of Dr. Schiwago, because of use of the elemnts from the forerunner)]

In this case the question is: Is it a variant or is it another game?
And, of course, it's important for designers to discuss this question from two sides:

Protection is need for designed games but not to prevent from designing news games. Get inspiration from other games is what designers usually do, but just changing a little bit and publishing as own is theft.

No, I know this, but the discussion is not: How to prevent from stealing. The discussion is about it's theft or not.

If guys like you say, it's not theft, because many people do so, than it's no wonder that the respect for law is trivial. I try to get respect not only for designers creation but also for designers right to decide about his creation.

Yes, but it's not a reason to say, that's not theft (see your first post in this thread)

sorry I'm not sure. You say it's not right to steal a game, but also that's not theft what we're talking about. Maybe here is the source of misunderstanding.

Thanks - even money is not all. I want to earn enough money to pay my bills (including bills from a lawyer, if necessary ;) ), just to feel free. But that's not all by designing games. Games are not only toys, they are also media.

I am still a bit far from my purpose, but it's not totally worse. BTW: what do you think: How much a game designer gets from a 20$ game (price customer pays in shop)? If it would be 'one or two bucks' he'd be very happy.