ASL is still breathing. thank G^d

[Cauldron]

Hy CM'ers,

Well I expect someone has been hit in the CM goolies this weekend - why are Pz IV's equivilent to Sherman fodder?

Anyway, I was wondering:

1) If ASL scenario's are still being converted (in general).

2)If you WERE or ARE a ASL fan and are interested in resurecting this mission give me a e mail.

Many thanks to the people who have written to me with scenario's , truely tremendous !

eric

[Chad Harrison]

did you just read my post from before? i was asking wether everyone knew whether or not hasbro or multi man publishing had copywrited their scenarios?!?

yes i am very interested in making these old scenarios ALL avaliable to the public, with some CM mods to them for better play ofcourse. today i finished writting down all the battles that already have been converted and that are on the scenario archive. i counted 67 of them that have been made. of those a lot of them i had never heard of, and so it seems there is a lot of room to play with!

i was also thinking of using the original scenarios only for a base, and then add upon them. that way, it would not be breaking the copywright anyways; also i would be able to use a little more flavour that is avaliable in CM for it!

what do you think?

[MrSpkr]

I've converted a few from the old SL-COI-COD-GI:AoV Series- Weissenhof crossroads and huide and seek are the two best - and also have another 9hitdorf on the Rhine).

The problem is that often, in SL, teh victory conditions are not replicable in CM.

[Chupacabra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

i was also thinking of using the original scenarios only for a base, and then add upon them. that way, it would not be breaking the copywright anyways; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah it would, actually. Think of it this way - I buy a Steven King novel. If I write a new chapter, tack it onto the end, and repackage it, do you think King's lawyers are going to leave me alone?

[Commissar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

did you just read my post from before? i was asking wether everyone knew whether or not hasbro or multi man publishing had copywrited their scenarios?!?

yes i am very interested in making these old scenarios ALL avaliable to the public, with some CM mods to them for better play ofcourse. today i finished writting down all the battles that already have been converted and that are on the scenario archive. i counted 67 of them that have been made. of those a lot of them i had never heard of, and so it seems there is a lot of room to play with!

i was also thinking of using the original scenarios only for a base, and then add upon them. that way, it would not be breaking the copywright anyways; also i would be able to use a little more flavour that is avaliable in CM for it!

what do you think?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A valid copyright exist on a creative work the moment it is created. You don't need to register it or anything for a valid copyright to exist. However, there are many advantages to registering a copyright with the Trademark and Patent Office. The owners have already well asserted their copyrights so about the only legal way for you to convert scenarios directly to CM would be with MMP/Hasbro's permisssion. However, you can use the ASL scenrio as a basis for your own scenario as long as you make enough signifcant changes to reasonable argue the work is your own and now "orginal". The changes just can't be superficial and small. I believe the standard is whether the a person familar with the said copyrighted material would reasonably recognize it another's work. If you put only superficial changes, then your toast. Direct copies would definitely fall under violations of copyrights.

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[tanq_tonic]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Commissar:

A valid copyright exist on a creative work the moment it is created. You don't need to register it or anything for a valid copyright to exist. However, there are many advantages to registering a copyright with the Trademark and Patent Office. The owners have already well asserted their copyrights so about the only legal way for you to convert scenarios directly to CM would be with MMP/Hasbro's permisssion. However, you can use the ASL scenrio as a basis for your own scenario as long as you make enough signifcant changes to reasonable argue the work is your own and now "orginal". The changes just can't be superficial and small. I believe the standard is whether the a person familar with the said copyrighted material would reasonably recognize it another's work. If you put only superficial changes, then your toast. Direct copies would definitely fall under violations of copyrights.

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

registering a copyright allows you to sue for in Federal Court for statutory damages, rather than just for enjoining the work. Without registration I can't get the statutory damages, and some circuits state that it is a prerequisite to any damages, and some others say that it is a prerequisite to set foot in Federal court.

the registration is with the Copyright Office, not the PTO.

If you use the scenario as a basis, there is still a derivative work problem. The copyright bundle has one "stick" that is the right to make derivative works. Thus, if I have access to the Mona Lisa (and assuming a copyright in the Mona Lisa, in which there is none), and make an Andy Wharhol type image of it, there is still a derivative work problem.

However, you may still add your own copyrightable material. If you "subtract out" the origianl basis material, then my original depiction has some protectable aspects to it. However, this does not excuse the "derivative work" problem already inherent.

The standard for copyright infringement is :

1) access to the copied material;

2) similarity to the material.

there is no standard as to "recognizing it" under the statutory or common law.

This is my vocation (IP attorney shark)

[Harold]

Does anyone know why Col. Klotz shut down his ASL website? Some said he got too busy with school/work. Others said the copyright issue w/ Hasbro popped up.

Harold

[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?

[Maximus]

<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>

I just think Hasbro is being an ass about the whole thing. Does that surprise anybody.

At first Col. Klutz's ASL2CM site was praised by the SL/ASL makers, but then Hasblow took over and it all of a sudden became taboo. I guess they didn't want any confusion over their pitiful attempt at creating Soldiers at War 2 aka Squad Leader.

[tanq_tonic]

<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.

[tanq_tonic]

<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 ]

[Subvet]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tanq_tonic:

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree with you on principle. Not just on the quote above, but your whole post. I just can't resist replying to the quote above though. I'd say that Hasbro has done more to reduce the asset that is the name "Squad Leader" than everyone else combined. Of course, like you pointed out, it is their right to do what they want with it. Unfortunately they used that right to run the name into the ground for a quick buck.

[xerxes]

As long as you clearly identify it as "loosely based on" a squad leader scenario you should be in the clear. In truth, it is totally impossible to create a SL scenario in CM without making very significant modifications.

That won't stop the corporate lawyer from bullying. To be safe don't use the term SL, just make a reference to SL that is transparent to anyone yet doesn't use the trademark.

Note: If a reader/gamer might be in any way confused about this being an "official" squad leader conversion than Hasbro has every legal right to bring out the big guns.

Also if any of the images or text from any Hasbro owned documentation, ads, graphics, etc are used that is a direct and clear violation of copyright.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer but in my work I've had to deal with these issues so I have some knowledge about the issues.

- xerxes

[Bertram]

The historical event of course is not copy righted. Copy righted is the version they made of it in their game. This is to protect the work and creativity that went in to it, like getting the maps, researching the OOB, and converting it to a scenario. For this reason the copyrights are more in line with books and artworks then with trademarks or things like that.

So you can do a scenario on the Tractor Works Battles (for example), but you may not use (A)SL material as a basis for it. Of course, if they stayed close to history, you can use historical maps and OOB's, and come up with a comparable scenario. As long as you can point to the (historical and for this purpose free) sources you used you are ok. Even if you based your scenario on a ASL scenario, as long as you could get the same result using open sources you will get away with it. For this reason a lot of game compagnies made 'typo's' in things like place names and other small incorrections on purpose. You would have a hard time convincing a judge that you just happened to make the same mistakes independently.

With Squad Leader the problem is that most scenario's are a 'real free interpretation' of the historical events. So any scenario based on them will clearly be based only on them, and not on the historical event itself. And there you will run into trouble.

An other possibility is using the Squad Leader scenario's just as an source of inspiration, like Warholl used the Mona Lisa. This is allowed, but you have to add enough of your own to it to make the work separate and uniquely yours. This is much more of a grey area, and has to be determined on an individual bases (lawyers heaven!).

So you can base your scenario's on the events portrayed in the Squad Leader scenario's, but you wil have to do some research of your own, or you can rebuild the scenario's so that they are altered so much that they are a separate and unique work (and not really recognizable and this of course would take away the fun).

Bertram

To slow, way to slow!!

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Bertram ]

[Harold]

As one who did more than a few ASL conversions I can certainly understand Hasbros POV on the maps being reproduced and the titles, intros and aftermaths being copied. I tried to avoid making the intros and aftermaths the same but the title and the maps were just a wee bit harder to dodge. That being said I think in a few years the ASL conversion process will die off permanently. The historical foundation is already out there to make thousands of scenarios and with the ever increasing access and utilization of the historical terrain that the battles were fought on it will be rather silly to fight on anything less than the real stuff converted to pixels. Of course this brings up a whole other ball of wax when someone creates a a scenario using historical terrain and OOB and someone else "copies" their stuff. Thats when the real fun will begin. Still converting and playing ASL scenarios was some of the most fun I ever had with CM.

Harold

[Panzertruppen maddox]

Just remember something folks, the wargaming community is very small, very bright, and have a memory like an elephant. We're talking about people who remember how many track links an obscure fighting vehicle produced in 1939 had! Grognards are some of the most stubborn people on the planet.

No wargame company has any control over its own destiny. None. Nadda. Zip. On the other hand, the gamers have TOTAL control over their eventual fate. Walmart and McDonalds and big corporations like that can get away with tramping all over their customers and still make a pile of money. Wargame companies don't dare make that mistake. If they are foolish enough to seriously piss off the gamers, they pay a immediate price. It's called bankruptcy by most people.

A wargame company that carefully builds and nurtures its relationship with the gamers (the way BTS has done) will soon have a very dedicated, ferociously loyal following. These companies understand that due to the nature of the beast they need to show a little flexibility because it's in their own long-term financial interest.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think people should go around blatantly ripping off other people's work. Mutual respect is the best approach. There are three cardinal rules for wargames:

1. Never invade the Soviet Union.

2. Never piss off the grognards.

3. Never ever do both at the same time.

A lot of companie spout slogans like "only for wargamers" or "by wargamers, for wargamers." When companies like Hasbro clamp down like that, that's when the wheat is separated from the chaff. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Commissar]

<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>

The historical event itself is not being copyrighted, however the interpretation of it is. Again, no one can stop you from creating your interpretation of the event but you can't merely copy someone else's work and creation without running into trouble.

Granted the deriative work problem would exist, however if you change the work to the point or standard I have said, I think you can argue an original work. "Similarity to the work" is awfully vague except for the shameless copying of another's work. Also, anyone with 30-50 dollars would have access to the ASL scenarios. Hell, they have several for download on their homepage for free. My understanding is the copyright law is not there to hinder innovation or progress but it is there to give the creator of the particular idea credit and compensation. Of course the owner has control. If you create a scenario that is that radically different from an ASL scenario that you would be hard pressed to argue that the ASL scenario is easily recognizable, you might as well just do you own work in the first place. There is no reason to take a risk and your interpretation can be more "accurate" than what the masters of SL have dictated. However, I am no IP lawyer but that's my understanding.

[ 08-18-2001: Message edited by: Commissar ]

[tanq_tonic]

<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 ]

[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

C) Playing a scenario converted from ASL to CM may actually increase interest in ASL by bringing CM players to take a look at it.

So, yeah, Multiman could hunt down and sue the heck out of everyone who has ever converted an ASL scenario for copyright infringement, but what would the damages be? Nobody took any money out of Multi Man Publishing's fingers and nobody profited at MultiMan's expense.

Personally I think when that DFDR guy contacted Multi Man for permission to use their scenarios, the guy he corresponded with must not have understood that DFDR was just a mod of CM and not a whole new game in its own right. They already knew about Col Klotz's site, so I can only presume that there was something different about their perception of the DFDR mod. I have to admit that when I first saw the little DFDR 'ad' I wondered if it was a whole new game too. Why he felt the need to contact MultMan when Col Klotz was already hosting numerous converted scenarios is beyond me though. Just post the mod like everyone else.

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?

[tanq_tonic]

<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 ]

[Panzertruppen maddox]

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.

Exactly my point. I'm not arguing that Hasbro didn't have a legal right to make fools of themselves, I'm simply arguing that it was a self inflicted wound.

Like I stated before, wargaming is a very very small community. As far as the individual game companies go we don't need them, they need us. They can see that it's in their own self interest be a little flexible here and there. If they can't, then it's a lessen the gamers will teach them the hard way. Their corporate suits can yak all day long that they alone control the product. In actuality, then may own it, but they don't control it at all. We do. Piss off the grognards and their "property" won't be worth spit.

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. id Software is notorious for the aid their senior programmers have given to the gaming community. That's one of the big secrets of their long-term success.

Of course there is a line in the sand. If someone were to take a bunch of CM mods, burn them onto a CD and sell it as a Combat Mission expansion pack, that would be wrong without BTS' blessing. In this case they would be justified to protect their work and I don't think many people would object.

The heart of a successful game system is a good relationship with the gamers, and a healthy add-on/mod community. Hasbro may have been technically "right," but they may find in the long run that they were wrong.

[ASL Veteran]

While I’m sure that the law itself is not targeted towards profit, 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 – regardless of how correct it might be to take said action. We are talking about a business here, not an individual looking for a restraining order to gain personal safety from their ex or somefink. The goal of every business is profit, and there are costs associated with the taking of legal action. 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. Presumably in this situation, someone who plays an ASL scenario converted to CM might think that ASL scenarios are so lame that they would never plunk down their money to buy ASL and that this copied scenario damaged their business. Taking legal action would then recover lost profits. How about the settlement itself? I doubt that Multiman would even be able to pay their legal fees with what they could get from your average Joe scenario converter – who may or may not even have a real job.

If Multiman were serious about pursuing every John Doe who converted a scenario, then there would be a physical cost (paying the lawyers and assigning someone to scour the web for illegally converted scenarios – perhaps even as a full time job), opportunity cost (what they are spending on lawyers and web searching could be spent on the next module they want to produce), along with a ‘goodwill’ cost (how does this legal action affect the public image of this company). Focusing just on the goodwill cost for a moment, I think it is safe to assume that the people who are converting ASL scenarios to CM already have ASL products and that Multiman would therefore be taking legal action against their own customer base. Is this really very smart if there is no economic gain involved? They could literally litigate their way out of business!

Anyway, that is a financial assessment of the situation rather than a legal assessment of the situation - I'll leave legal stuff to the lawyers and I'll stick to financial stuff . Recognizing the costs associated with this whole thing, I would think the odds of being sent a letter from Multiman's crack legal team would be remote - unless you go into their den and tweak their beard! Hey, then if you get the letter, just cease and you're good to go right?

Just my own feeling - I really doubt that Multiman really thought it through if they asked Colonel Klotz to do whatever it was that they asked him to do. They obviously didn't do any research into the potential impact to their business that legal action would entail. It was doubtless a knee jerk reaction from someone who has been fighting too many copyright cases against other companies (such as Heat of Battle, Schwerpunkt, etc) and where copyright protection has become an ingrained corporate habit. Somebody at Multiman thought they saw something sinister and blew a fuse. However, just because you can take legal action doesn't mean that it is the smart thing to do.

[tanq_tonic]

<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

[tanq_tonic]

<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.

[ASL Veteran]

Okay, let's tackle the high ground then . How is it that Multiman publishing has copyrights on scenarios created by various individuals and published by various different companies? 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? Michael Klautky, Critical Hit, or Multiman Publishing?

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?