Question re: Copyright

DanMacK · Post by **DanMacK** » 08 Mar 2004 00:02

Hey Guys,

Just looking over the discussions and thought this was a valid point.

Q: Are the creators planning on charging for this version of TTD?

If not, then isn't the copyright issue a moot point? The creators are acknowledging the original source of the game, mentioning they are recompiling it into a totally different language and are not charging for it.

Since they are not profiting from this venture, and therefore not profiting from recompiling Chris's original code in C, where is the issue? It's not as if people aren't being told who did the original programming. If Owen or Ludde (or any other people) were charging for this, and weren't paying any royalties to Chris Sawyer or the legit owners, then yes, I'd see a problem.

Anyone see my point?

DominionSpy · Post by **DominionSpy** » 08 Mar 2004 01:12

DanMacK wrote:Since they are not profiting from this venture, and therefore not profiting from recompiling Chris's original code in C, where is the issue?

...

Anyone see my point?

What about the other way round? Since there is a version which is free, then Chris is not profiting from it as he might have done otherwise.
It's not enough to say that OpenTTD isn't making any profit.

TBOT · Post by **TBOT** » 08 Mar 2004 01:16

It's a complicated issue. But I don't think it's kinda legal to make a 1-on-1 copy of the game.

CobraA1 · Post by **CobraA1** » 08 Mar 2004 01:28

Yeah, I can see your point. I can also see the other way around, as dominionspy indicated.

A small, but vital point also: Copyright law isn't about profit, but rather ownership. Nowhere in copyright law have I seen any exceptions because of profit or lack thereof.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 02:49

CobraA1 wrote:Yeah, I can see your point. I can also see the other way around, as dominionspy indicated.

A small, but vital point also: Copyright law isn't about profit, but rather ownership. Nowhere in copyright law have I seen any exceptions because of profit or lack thereof.

Technically that's true, but the damages are assessed based on a.) revenues of the thief, and b.) foregone revenues of the actual owner. There aren't any revenues for OpenTTD so there goes that, and the game was discontinued ages ago so there goes the other. There are no damages to anyone, so there is nothing for the court to adjudicate. Also, there is the issue of fair use vs. derivative work, which are in conflict and are very hairy to unwind. The copyright nazis don't want you even to know there is such a thing as fair use, but there is whether they like it or not. It's based on two issues as I recall - a.) the percentage of the original work you used, and b.) whether what you made from it is clearly a new and different work. The only thing from TTD that OpenTTD uses, is the graphics; as a total volume that's a fairly low percentage. It would be good to not do that, and I imagine fairly soon that will be the case. Once the graphics are gone and the name is changed, all that's left is the idea, which is a whole lot harder to argue over. In order for anyone to prove that OpenTTD copied the TTD source code, they'd have to prove we had access to the source code, which as far as I know has never been the case (if it was, the Patch would have been so much easier...) And once OpenTTD has absorbed all the Patch improvements and new graphics, it will very clearly be a new and original work.

So in conclusion, OpenTTD as it now stands is in a marginally risky position, but this will soon cease to be an issue if OpenTTD develops as we expect. Of course, this is a theoretic risk, it is exceedingly unlikely anyone would want to waste the money on an international lawsuit for a game of uncertain ownership that has been discontinued against a freeware version that makes no money. There's no money in it anywhere, for anyone, not even enough to pay the lawyers. The only involved group not known not to own TTD, is Atari, and they weren't willing to spend the time to find out if they even owned it or not, much less litigate.

Roman · Post by **Roman** » 08 Mar 2004 06:10

You forgot the music/sound. But that doesn't change the truth of your speech...

Bart · Post by **Bart** » 08 Mar 2004 06:17

It's very easy... the default OpenTTD package should come with 100% custom graphics/sounds/etc... but, there should be a choice for people with TTD to insert the original graphics...

TBOT · Post by **TBOT** » 08 Mar 2004 10:44

Bart wrote:It's very easy... the default OpenTTD package should come with 100% custom graphics/sounds/etc... but, there should be a choice for people with TTD to insert the original graphics...

Where did I hear that before ?

eis_os · Post by **eis_os** » 08 Mar 2004 11:21

Wasn't there a linux port of a game (you need the original game cds) that was stoped because the company didn't like it? ...

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 16:39

Probably they wanted to charge for the linux port, that would be a lot more dicey because you would be making money off of their idea and game. If there is no profit being made, there are still restrictions but they are a lot more grey.

Actually, I don't know how important the strict legalities are. Let's face it, if somebody sues Josef, it doesn't matter if they don't have a legal leg to stand on; Josef has already lost because he would have to pay a lawyer, waste time in court, etc. etc. even if he was found Not Guilty as I would expect. I think the much more pertinent issue is, would anyone bother suing? And to me the answer is pretty firmly No.

MadEgg · Post by **MadEgg** » 08 Mar 2004 17:51

The FreeCraft port was shut down by Blizzard because it looked too much like their Warcraft II game and it could handle the Warcraft II graphics, maps, music and sound. Quite obvious since it was a clone.

Anyway, they didn't like it for some stupid reason, also partly because the big resemblance in the two names.

There wasn't any charge for the Linux port at all, open source just like this one. Quite a stupid step if you ask me since you still needed the original data from the original CD to play the game so instead of costing blizzard money it would get more people to buy the game.

vear · Post by **vear** » 08 Mar 2004 18:10

Yeah, clones aren't liked by pubilishers, but there are some expections

, i.e. Broken Sword 2,5 that Revolution Software even supports

Maybe we could count on similar statement of Chris Sawyer and Atari

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 08 Mar 2004 18:14

RadekK wrote:Maybe we could count on similar statement of Chris Sawyer and Atari

No, impossible. Chris Sawyer has no legal standing, he has no ability to say anything. Atari won't even find out if they own the game, obviously they aren't going to say anything if they don't know they own it, and they aren't going to spend the time and money to find out if they own it, just to give it away. And since the game isn't being published anymore (OK, there may be a few copies still floating around, but Atari isn't selling any and getting any money), the argument of them making more money isnt' of value. I already tried that angle.

Dan · Post by **Dan** » 09 Mar 2004 04:04

Could anyone ask chris sawyer who owns the rights to TTD? If anyone knows it will be most likely that he does.

mikeya · Post by **mikeya** » 09 Mar 2004 10:41

Dan wrote:Could anyone ask chris sawyer who owns the rights to TTD? If anyone knows it will be most likely that he does.

I don't expect him to reply to that.

I know people have tried to contact him in the past, the only thing floats around here is that Chris doesn't like ttdpatch. One of the few things we know.

krtaylor · Post by **krtaylor** » 09 Mar 2004 13:20

If you look on his website it says Microprose. But of course that is very out of date now.

Transport Tycoon Forums

Question re: Copyright

Question re: Copyright

Re: Question re: Copyright

Who is online