Here’s a couple of more reasoned, and a couple of more radical ideas of the “freedom” of software, after the jump..

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html (Why software should be free… definitely a fringe, but to some appealing,  idea)

(Free software) running MMOs     

An Enterprise software licensees bill of rights  

A software lawyer’s take on Forresters software licensee bill of rights 

Interesting examples:  Open game license from Wizards of the Coast; D20 games and such (Y’know you’ve got those 20-sided die lying around… I know I do)….. My favorite quote: “Q: I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?   A: Yes, it’s certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you’ve included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.”

Follow-up: an anecdotal look at it’s impact explained by an insider (Monte Cook, writer of D&D Third Edition Dungeon Master’s Guide, among other things.) 

More followup: The changes in the original Open Game License, from Chris Parmas.

________________________________________________________________

Personal commentary:  there’s a lot of things to consider here.  First of all, open game licenses are very anti-corporate-philosophy and therefore rare.  However, there is a lot of customer goodwill built up and many creative games have creative players and player-creators.  You should read some of the followup stories I’ve listed to see if you, as a potential game-creator, can use this type of license.  Is the fandom worth the monetary gain given up?  Are there other streams of income you can leverage with your (hopefully) buzz-building from “giving” the rules/strategy/system away instead of copyrighted? 

Most of these are board games, or card games.  Coincidence?  Hardly.  These require a much smaller budget and thus much smaller gross income is required to turn a profit.  Does that mean more do?  Not from what I read.  And there’s thousand of videogames put out each decade, dwarfing the smaller RPGs and board/card games as a genre.  But how many people still play D&D variants, or Vampire: Bloodlines pen-and paper… can you say the same for Mario Brothers?  (OK, bad example).  But generally once a platform passes, so do all the games.  It’s like writing a book… are you in this for profit or for becoming a legend?  Your personal goals dictate whether as a solo entrepreneur you wish to utilize a free-based model or a for-profit model.  Just something to think about. 

 Subscribe to Gamers Rights Law Feed by Email

Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.

Apparently the holiday seasons were an excellent time for Hasbro to sue. This story from Industrygamers says Hasbro ” today (Dec 17) announced its intentions to file a lawsuit against Atari, accusing the game publisher of fraud and five separate licensing agreement breaches of the Dungeons & Dragons brand.”

Here is the text of the lawsuit, from the incomparable Courthouse News.

I would urge my readers to peruse this. 176 counts? really? I enjoyed the fact that it did recount the emails, phone calls, contradictions, and internal friction that preceded the lawsuit. It asks for damages plus an accounting, among other other things.

Here is another take on the lawsuit, from 1UP.

Yet another, very clean synopsis, here at play.tm.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________

In a somewhat similar lawsuit, Turbine announced earlier it was suing Atari for damages. Here is another article from Big Download about that lawsuit over the game Dungeons and Dragons.

You can read the full text of the August lawsuit here.

Any comments on either of these suits are welcome. As the details become more fleshed out I will follow this dispute.

Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.

You can read a gamer’s blog assailing Games Workshop and their protection of their rights in their boardgames.

Some of the sites GW complained about, and has had disputes with included Headless Hollow; also Vassal Game Engine.

Other targets are Darkhammer, and also Blood Bowl relaunch

And just a little more; GW shuts down Vassal40K, another in what GW says are derivative, infringing sites.

Many of these sites are non-profit; some of these are strictly fan-run; yet others are unapologetically attempting to make a profit using derivatives or veiled clones of Games Worskhop games. But you should read the sites above (at least those not shut down yet) to see their own personal stories.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OK, now to the other side. Here is the link to the The C&D letter from theChilling effects Web site (collection of Cease-and-Desist letters). Next, for fairness sake, here is the formal response from Games Workshop.

In a related matter, this is an older story about GW enforcing its rights.

There are many gamers who have played these particular games, or derivatives on the internet, for months and even years. But Games Workshop has several plausible legal reasons for choosing this course of action. One that should be noted is the Doctrine of Laches, explained below by an impartial attorney speaking generally.

According to noted entertainment lawyer Gordon Firemark, “The essence of the Doctrine of Laches is that rights holders must be vigilant in protecting their copyrights, trademarks, patents and other proprietary rights. Ignoring ’small’ or ’minor’ infringements is a risky proposition, because eventually, the infringers (and others) may come to rely on the rights-owner’s forbearance as equivalent to consent. Cases abound in which Courts have enforced the doctrine of laches , viewing such reliance as justified, and depriving the rights owners of meaningful remedies.”(Note: you can read his full interpretations of this issue at Why and How artists MUST take action when their work is infringed).

So make up your own mind about what the outcome of this legal conflict will be. And think about what you think the outcome SHOULD BE. Please comment below if you think the current course of action should continue; or whether GW could or should reach some type of understanding with these Website and individuals. And certainly I welcome any public comments from GW or any of the Website owners affected.

Jay Moffitt is a Tennessee attorney. This blog is for entertainment and educational purposes only and does not consitute legal advice or create an attorney/client relationship. Jay Moffitt is not certified as a specialist in this area by Tennessee and Tennessee does not certify specialists in this practice area. All comments will be answered promptly and courteously as long as they are germane to the discussion and do not contain specific game names or incidents.