Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy.
So, the deadline came and went, and Scrabulous still lives. Anyone up for a game? To be honest I was pretty sympathetic to Hasbro since the game is so transparently out to infringe copyright. Scrabbing is my favorite (well, only) pastime on Facebook, but the games makers are not exactly victims here.
A note on our important Editorial Policy.
Or you could buy something for Dean from his WISH LIST!
Celia Farber
Music, Movies, Books, and Etc.
Questioning the HIV/AIDS establishment
|
Dean's World uses and recommends:
Scroogle Search
Your donations also make Dean's World possible.
Or you could buy something for Dean from his WISH LIST!
According to one view of copyright -- let's call it the traditional view, since it went unquestioned for a very long time -- Scrabulous could not be infringing on Scrabble, because that view held that game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, any more than ideas can. The particular words and illustrations you use to express those game mechanics are copyrightable, but the mechanics themselves are not. Again, think of the analogy to ideas: you can copyright a book that explains nuclear magnetic resonance, but you can't copyright the ideas that explain nuclear magnetic resonance.
It's important to note that, the last time I researched this subject, the traditional view was not embodied in any statute, nor confirmed by any court case. The only written support for the traditional view was a single opinion statement from the copyright office. But the analogy to ideas being unpatentable was strong, and the traditional view was treated as settled.
Then there's another view. I'm tempted to call it the Hasbro view, since they're among its strongest proponents. This view holds that for some game mechanics, particularly complex game mechanics, the mechanics themselves are unique creations deserving copyright protection. The mechanics, in this view, aren't like laws of nature or philosophical ideas or other sorts of ideas which be discussed and studied. Rather, the mechanics are closer to inventions.
This has been a hot issue for Hasbro and other big game makers for a while. For Hasbro, one of the big examples has been D&D, where the rules are certainly as complex as a novel or a textbook. I find some merit to the argument that something as complex as a novel deserves as much protection as a novel.
Yet I also find some merit to the argument that ideas should be open for discussion. And (again, as far as I know) the Hasbro view has also never been written in any statute nor settled in any court case. It's really more just a statement of position on Hasbro's part: "We are prepared to vigorously press this view in court. We strongly believe we will win. If you're equally sure that we're wrong, you are welcome to stand by your position, and we'll let the court decide." Last I knew, no one had taken them up on that.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.