Jump to content

tanq_tonic

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    1695

Converted

  • Location
    Silicon Valley

tanq_tonic's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Sorry for the noobness here --- I have RTFM (and searched the forums) but still am having a problem. How do you direct a unit to "enter" a vehicle to retrieve ammo? as the manual states, in "order to use Acquire, the infantry unit has to enter the the vehicle". For the life of me I cannot find the mechanism to get the unit to enter. I have looked on whole squads, split them into teams, and tried with weapons teams as well. Still scratching my head. Thnx in advance. Btw, I am a *longtime* CM guy (13 yrs now....), but only recently picked up CM2...
  2. Just for you Joe, email is now shown AND general location. Of course, having to have that info is pretty much "taking the short bus" in this thread.... Hugs and Smoochies..... (damn.... finally hit my Profile page after three years, the temerity of the pushy ones on this thread....... ah, I get it...... he is "not a nerd"....)
  3. Funny thing, though. Where I live the "nerds" are the ones that have the million dollar+ option packages, the great cars, the babes, have the connections to the VC's, sometimes ARE the VC's, and the two million+ houses in the hills. The guys who make fun of the nerds are the guys that are the mid-level managers in the Nerd's companies and departments, drive the 10 year old Beamer that they can barely afford, live in the condo that they rent in Campbell (since they can't afford a down payment here), join the YMCA or 24 hour fitness (since that they cannot afford the "nerd clubs"), and try to mash on the stupid chicks showing their fake Rolexes. They too use that same condescending tone to their workers, who will typically quit to start their own company to avoid the guy who makes fun of the nerds. Sometimes, when they are in a good mood, the "refugee nerds" might hire that guy who makes fun of them. And which side do you belong to?
  4. back in the good old days (before the current work type) I used to poke around the net. I had found a site that was the penultimate "computer game" review site, which was (and still is) unsponsored. The link is http://www.pressroom.com/~meb Having some spare time I went there, and for kicks looked up CM. without further adieu, here is the review: COMBAT MISSION: BEYOND OVERLORD (I-95 CD/M) Big Time Software; Charles Moylan and Steve Grammont; 2000; ***** Int/Land/Tac-Op 1-2; M This simulation is not recommended; it is a MANDATORY acquisition. If you only buy one wargame during the year, this is the one. With the millennium of games being a graphic festival of sequels and whiter shades of pale carbons, COMBAT MISSION is simply a sea change. This is a wargame that is not a conversion from a boardgame; it emphasizes the strengths of the computer and is eminently playable. World War II missions on the Western Front offer a verisimilitude rarely seen. Perhaps the strength of the simulation is in the terrain representation. With multiple viewing levels, one can adopt different perspectives in order to watch games play in one minute increments. Yet, it is at the ground level that the strength of this simulation really shines. Terrain folds and ridges which offer concealment and/or cover can only be seen from this "you-are-there" perspective. Reconnaissance of terrain and reconnaissance by fire coupled with bounding overwatch and indirect fire support become necessary steps to survival. Only available by mail (http://www.battlefront.com), this should see wider distribution.
  5. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jager: Why don't you just go around the copyright stuff by not copying the original maps, OOB and briefings exactly? If it is not exactly the same then you do not, imho, go against the copyright. You are just creating something similar. Just tell people that you got inspired by this or that ASL scenario or it's similar to it, but it is not the ASL scenario, as everyone can see after carefull studying: See those buildings are in different place or do not exist in the ASL, that road there does not go like this in the ASL map and the germans did not have the sharpshooter in the ASL scenario.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, it does violate copyright. If you can only ascertain differences after a "careful study", you are probably violative of a copyright in the work. Look up the definition of a "derivative work." That one of the points I've been trying to make all thread.
  6. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: By the way, I think you may get a lurker award being only a Junior Member with a moderately low member number.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Or Im a wierd attorney who doesnt like to talk for the sheer sake of talking......
  7. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Okay, let's tackle the high ground then . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> gulp.... lol <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How is it that Multiman publishing has copyrights on scenarios created by various individuals and published by various different companies?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You would have to trace who has the rights. One would have to know the particulars of the assignments, agreements, licenses, and relationships between the parties. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I mean, if Michael Klautky creates an ASL scenario "Double or Nothing" and it is published by Critical Hit, how does Multiman even get into the equation? They didn't create the scenario, and they didn't publish it - they only provided the game platform. Who has the intellectual rights to this scenario?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The copyrights are a bundle of rights. Without getting bogged down, you would have to particularly identify the right and the object in question. In this case, assuming that no existing relationship between the three parties, by default, the original author has at least some rights. In this case at least some of the various rights in issue are: printing rights -- probably belong to Critical Hit possibly some "scenario" rights -- Klautky derivative works rights -- MM rights in the map used (assuming it being produced or published by MM) -- MM <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>For a CM bent - Dan (Kwazydog) made a scenario that is included on the CM disk called "All or Nothing". What if I wanted to convert his scenario "All or Nothing" into an ASL scenario? Who would have the intellectual rights to that scenario - Dan or BTS? If Dan says - sure, go ahead and convert it - can BTS say no?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> again, there are a number of rights in issue. Case 1, I'll assume that there is no assignement between BTS and the author, Case 2 I'll assume that the scenario is a "work made for hire" Case 1 scenario rights -- ie original map, OOB probably Mr. Kwazydog however, the copyright notice for the game disk is in the name of CM. Thus, there is a presumptive aspect that an assignment of some sort has been made, or that a copyright in an anthology is claimed extra from the copyright in the single work. Thus you waould want to contact both to find out where the real rights lie. Case 2 In a work made for hire, the rights all reside with the person commissioning the work. As you can probably surmise, the various rights, along with the contractual relationships of the various parties, can get real sticky and real involved real quick. Nice incisive question ASLVet. I usually charge for this advice, and, before we get bogged down in a stream of what-if's, please dont be offended if I don't answer further involved questions. I try to divorce my 9 to 5 from my real life as much as possible. When dealing with 40,000 foot views, I have no problem answering more of them. However, dealing at a treetop flying level, I try not to get involved when Im not on the clock. That said, due to the nature of the answer I gave above, I really must say "The foregoing is not meant to be legal advice, just an explanation of what COULD happen in a hypothetical situation. As such, one should not rely on the advice given above in any or all instances, and one should always consult an attorney for advice in particular circumstances."
  8. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: the motivations of those pursuing legal action will have profit as their goal (either from the settlement itself, immediate profit, or potential profit). The settlement will have to have a positive economic impact on the party taking the legal action or there would be no point in the pursuit of that action and So, bringing this to our Multiman Publishing situation – they would have to feel that they could either gain economically, or recover lost profits for them to seriously pursue legal action against someone using the ASL name or products (unless they’re stupid of course). The only potential gain Multiman could have in the case of converted ASL scenarios is that for some reason they might feel that the ASL name is being damaged by these conversions and is therefore causing lost sales.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are correct on the financial assessment. However, you have neglected the implicit problems. As alluded to before, if they do not protect their property rights, they may be found to have waived them. The straight analogy is adverse possession of real property. If I know that someone has "occupied" my high ground, and I do notheing, then I may lose rights not just towards the bad guys in question, but I may actually lose rights towards everyone. In that case, when dealing with an asset that is an income source, they will weigh both the implicit benefits (keeping their hands on the property) summed with the explicit benefits against the costs. The implicit benefits are huge to these people, so while they may be out money to do so, they may do whatever is necessary to protect their property.
  9. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzertruppen maddox: Anyone that's been in the game industry for more than thirty seconds knows that all successful PC games share one thing in common: a healthy add-on or mod community. Look at all the top games - QuakeIII, SimCity, flight simulators, etc. None of them would have lasted anywhere near as long as they have without the support and devotion of the gamers. Smart gaming companies go out of their way to foster this because they know it's good business. In some cases I've even seen companies offer assistance to mod-makers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> However, each company that you cite has mods and add-ons that fall within the ambit of their own gaming system. The more famous mods and add-ons do not explicitly take a free ride on other gaming scenarios, but, however, define new mods and add-ons in the context of the game itself. What we are talking about is "converting" one system to another, not "creating" new original add-ons or mods. While somewhat subtle, the point, IMO, provides a huge difference. In an analogy, do LINUX programmers "expect" that Microsoft is cool with allowing ports of Excel to the LINUX platform ? You can say that it is in the interest of Microsoft to allow such ports, and that the allowance would greatly improve their "standing" in the halls of the enemy, so to speak. Does it upset me that whomever wrote the letters concerning ASL mods to CM did so ? No. I do not fault any individual or entity for protecting their own ideas and work. However, we live in a society that apaprently says "If you publish it once, then everyone should be able to take advantage of it, otherwise we will be upset with you." If you wrote several long, hard scenarios for CM, how pleased would you be if ASL "adapted" them for their game system ? I doubt that anyone here would be pleased, yet that is the exact point we are talking about. If you will notice, this is not a technical legal argument, or an argument based on property rights. I think that the term of people "taking exception" to "clamping down" shows their expectation that everything out their belongs to everyone but the creator or holder of that right. Im sorry that you are upset with the ASL folks. That is your right. Without trying to provoke anything, it just seems that the tone of the original post was that the ASL people "owe" us wargamers the right to do with their work whatever we please. And on this point, it seems that you and I should agree to disagree. If I wrote a "great" scenario for CM, (which I haven't by a long shot, and in fact, I am still learning a lot of basics about gaming with) I know that the same rights protect my work from the same sort of adaptation. On a different note (I really hate mixing bidness with pleasure) anyone want to drop me a line to drub the hell out of an obnoxious IP attorney. Havent done the TCP/IP head to head yet, nor a PBEM) give me a holler at tanq_tonic@hotmail.com
  10. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I don't anticipate any problems along these lines since I have not used the ASL logo on any of the work. Think about it - if you have a historical website, and use a book as a reference to draw a diagram of a 1944 infantry battalion, you are not required to credit the author or the work, as the information is public knowledge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The logo is apart from the copyright aspects. Look it up. Second, in using ASL scenario, you are NOT using a historical website as a base. You are using a copyrighted work. Thus your example and your practice differ widely. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If someone can cite some actual case histories here instead of conjecture, it would do us all a lot of good. Otherwise, these conversations are growing very tiresome, and remind me of the "good" kids in class getting freaked out because "teacher is coming" even though you're not doing anything wrong.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Im sorry you dont take my word.... I do this sort of stuff for a living. I know my copyright and trademark law. As for "citing cases", try the BNA Intellectual Property Journal. They have a free trial. Sorry, I dont "look up cases" nor cite them on whim. But I do know my general principles, and remember vivid examples of what has gotten people into trouble. If you still want a "cite", I will be happy to do that at my normal hourly rate. (try looking up the cases on computer game scenarios, as, if i remember there are some excellent analogies to the present situation) Im sorry you don't believe, but, that is your right. I do know that if someone approached me to take a case such as this, I would have the defendant for lunch.... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: If anyone is really worried about the legality of creating SL conversions, then rewrite the briefings and rename the scenario. In my eye that is WORSE since you are simply rewriting someone else's work as your own. At least if you acknowledge it as an ASL scenario and credit the author, you are being a little bit honest.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Again, wrong. you really should look up what bundle of rights are involved in copyright before you espouse what is legal or not. And you also keep getting the concepts of trademark and copyright mixed up. But, the best thing about this type of post (as with most home grown conceptions in the intellectual properties) is that the end result keeps me very busy..... Hmmm.... maybe I should go back and delete all my posts..... lol. Anyway, all I ask, is that before pontificating on what the "proper" or "legal" means is, do your homework.
  11. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: I understand that you know your stuff, but I have a hard time understanding how an OOB can be protected. Seriously, could any scenario designer out there say that no one, in any other WWII game, can ever again use some particular combination of troops and vehicles? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the "scenario", which, since it is embodied in tangible form, the protectable elements are the map and the oob, in conjunction with one another. The map itself may embody another protection, apart from its use in the scenario, as that itself is embodied in tangible form. I apologize for my not so specific description posted previously, but away from "the world" I tend not to be quite so precise. (I like to act like a normal human being, instead of one with fins, fangs, and scales...) Hope this explains the distinction, (as I see it.)
  12. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: While technically Hasbro might be legally correct in taking action against every single CM player who converts an ASL scenario, I have to wonder what the potential gain would be for them. A) Not a single ASL scenario converter is making a single penny from their scenario conversions Multi Man Publishing isn't losing a single penny because the people playing the converted scenarios aren't playing ASL anyway - they are playing CM Nobody took any money out of Multi Man Publishing's fingers and nobody profited at MultiMan's expense. I didn't really want to point at the DFDR guy, but that's how I feel about it (whether it is justified or not). Anyway, if one of our legal beagles can kindly explain how Multiman is being damaged monetarily by those converting an ASL scenario then I'm all ears. Now if I photocopied all my ASL scenarios and sold them on a street corner at a discount - yeah, there would be a problem. But this? Where's the problem?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The point is, that the copyright is not designed to "protect profits." The Constitution says it is to "promote the arts", and thus, each artist or person who embodies artistic expression is given a limited right to control that expression, in return for the dissemination of that expression. You are correct, there is no "money out of hands." But, the ultimate purpose of copyright is not "profit based." It is to give the artist the right to control the use of the artistic expression for a limited amount of time. Example: starving artist A composes a masterpiece. T-shirt generator B sells 12 T-shirts bearing the masterpiece. The point of copyright is to allow artist A to prevent this from happening. The fact that Merchant B made a profit is irrelevant. That is why there are statutory damages of tens of thousands of dollars for each illegal copy. So the answer to your question of damages, it is huge, by statute. In one case I am very familiar with (artist, t-shirt mfg, sound familiar ?) the court found for statutory damages on 50 shirts as $60,000 dollars. Note that these are not economic damages, but damages authorized under statute, obstensibly there to protect the artist's right of determination. When you figure the basis of the copyright is not profit oriented, but artist control oriented, things take on a little different meaning, eh ? So your case of the profit oriented "where's the problem", there is none, just like in the example above. In the case of the the copyright giving the artist control of his or her creation, there is a serious problem. I guess that if you don't want the artist or creator to have that say, then your argument of "where is the problem" would be valid. But, as I've indicated above, the alternative is anarchy with respect to creations. If that were the case, I doubt we would have BTS even in business at that point...... [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: tanq_tonic ] [ 08-19-2001: Message edited by: tanq_tonic ]
  13. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>First, Panzertruppen maddox says: Don't get me wrong, I don't think people should go around blatantly ripping off other people's work. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Then When companies like Hasbro clamp down like that, that's when the wheat is separated from the chaff. Just my 2 cents worth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In the context of the thread, these seem to be mutually exclusive..... either you support the infringing behavior, or you don't. The scenarios "ARE" "ripoffs" (ie, very little original work associated with them, essentially a free ride) in the context. Why shouldn't Hasbro clamp down on the free ride ? Would you be happy is someone took a free ride on your bread and butter ? Look, Hasbro has an equitable argument in this case. I just find it interesting that you say you dont support it. However, in the next breath you then berate Hasbro for "clamping down[.]" To be honest, I liked the ASL scenarios. However, Hasbro has every right, morally, economically, and legally, to clamp down. Knowing that they have the right in the three senses tells me I can't bitch about them too much, since, in my own affairs, I also have those rights, and since I also have these rights, I cannot be hypocritical in the way I support them (or don't support them, for that matter) Before I get called a jerkball for saying this, I actually represent many copyright holders, both larger and smaller. I see first hand the amount of effort that goes into the creation of the work(s). To berate the holder of the work for "stamping down" always seems to follow the sayer's self interests. I think that anyone reading this board would not hesitate to do "EXACTLY THE SAME THING" if the self-interest equation were turned around. The only defensible position to say otherwise is to say that ALL currently protectible material is put there for YOUR own enjoyment and for YOUR sole purpose, which is simply not the case. IP shark [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: tanq_tonic ] [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: tanq_tonic ]
  14. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maximus: I just think Hasbro is being an ass about the whole thing. Does that surprise anybody. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have to take the different position. Hasbro has definite rights in the game system, and in the name. Put yourself into their shoes. You pay $$$$ for some type of game, most of which is an asset in an ethereal sense. Some of the assets are in the name ("Squad Leader") and some is in the copyright work. Is it fair for others to bootstrap off your work and name ? I do not think BTS would be very happy with an alternative game developer taking their game engine (another form of copyright), and selling scenario packs using their name as a bootstrap. Are you happy with people who download warez versions of CM ? I think its wrong, and those rights are of the same equivalence that should be accorded to Hsbro in this situation. There is no difference. Nor do I think you would be happy at that prospect. Don't get me wrong, I think the ASL scenarios are a nice conversion. But the effort that an entity puts into the design does deserve some respect. That is, unless you want a world that disrespects property rights, as much of the online world seems to be these days. [ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: tanq_tonic ]
  15. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by von Lucke: Excuse my ignorance --- not being versed in lawerly matters and all --- but how does one copyright an historical event? I mean, so I convert the SL scenario "The Tractor Works" into a CM:BB scenario --- wasn't the original scenario supposed to be based on actual events during the battle for Stalingrad? And in any case, it would not be identical to the original (two completely different mediums), so what's the prob?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Don't apologize for any "ignorance", it's a gnarly area of law..... I have to fight to keep abreast of it myself...... answer: you cannot copyright the facts or information regarding an event. Thus, the original OOB, or information on the locale, or other straight information cannot be copyrighted. In the particular SL scenario, the map used is not a map of the actual battle, or of the engagement. Nor are the OOB. Thus, there is an artistic touch to the SL scenario, namely the map and the OOB. (ie, they are artistic expressions of something placed in a tangible medium.) Thus, they are copyrightable. If I research the engangement and make my own, without the benefit of the copyrightable material in the Hasbro system, I may use it freely. However, if I use the artistic expressions in someone elses work, that may be a direct copyright problem, or a problem with a derivative work. For example, if I decide to make a game based on the battle of Gettysburg, the information is freely available. However, if I use the tangible artistic expressions of someone elses work on the matter (like taking the bitmap maps from another game), then that is a violation of the artistic expression. Hope this helps..... Its taken me years to figure the distinction out, and some problems still don't fit neatly.
×
×
  • Create New...