On Mon, August 18, 2008 2:09 pm, Michael Kiefte wrote:
Two points here.
Firstly, given that this is, essentially a support / marketing activity
for the physical game, why pay someone to do it and have to worry about
selling it to recoup the cost when the community is willing to do it for
you for free?
Secondly, selling your own tool to recoup the costs of developing it is
fine as an option. It’s simultaneously banning people from developing
their own tool for a game they have already paid for that I object to.
Surely even more of an argument for not trying to make such a module
part of your business, and instead to support (or at least not hinder) the
community in making such a module?
"But as soon as I want to use a computer to help out, I have to pay the
company again for their tool to do so, and I (or some other kind soul)
am forbidden from making our own tools, even if everyone involved has also
already paid for the game.
“Yes, I think that’s extremely unfair.”
First, you are not “forbidden from making [your] own tools.” You are just forbidden to distribute your own tool without approval. You can convert an ADC2 module to VASSAL and play with another who has converted his ADC2 module to VASSAL without approval and without violating copyright laws. You may have paid for the game, but you may also have to pay for the module. Do you kick to the theater about paying to see a movie for which you already have a purchased the book?
It costs the publisher money to make the game; it costs the publisher money to make and distribute the module. Can’t you understand that?
“The only other prominent one I can call to mind is Games Workshop, who,
while I enjoy some of their games, are fairly infamous for being draconian
about the use of “their IP” in any context. (Being the 800lb gorilla of
table-top gaming helps re-inforce this mindset.) It doesn’t exactly buy
them customer good-will.”
I am not an authority on who does and who doesn’t, but the VASSAL module site lists SPI [Decision Games], Games Workshop, and Sabertooth Games as companies who games cannot be posted. I think that Avalanche Games, Steve Jackson Games, and GD/R also have some reservations about posting.
There are many companies that do now permit there games to be posted and downloaded for free. But, illegally posting the games of those companies that do not want their property posted is to my mind not the way to encourage a change in those companies’ attitude. Neither is demanding or threatening not to buy their game a particularly good way to change those companies’ positions. Discuss this with Michael Kiefte. I believe that he has made some progress using better tactics.
“That’s sales those companies would absolutely have lost by providing
paid-for on-line support only in a format I can’t use, and blocking
community efforts.”
Of course, you CAN use the “paid-for on-line in a format I can’t use” by simply converting the ADC2 module to VASSAL. What exactly are the “community efforts” being blocked – the illegal distributing of copyrighted property?
“No, but then they should make money from selling the game. That’s not
what this discussion is about.”
Perhaps I don’t understand what this discussion is about. For a company or any organization to stay in business, it must be able to make money or be independent wealthy enough to not require a source of funds. I think that L2DG had to pay for the production of its ADC2 modules. To ask them to distribute the material out of the goodness of their hearts or for goodwill is asking a little much.
“Would you be willing to detail for us what you found difficult or confusing,
possibly in a different thread? People keep telling us this but hardly ever
seem willing to explain what they mean. We can’t improve if we don’t get such
feedback.”
I have done some of that already. You should be familiar with some of my attempts on ConsimWorld’s VASSAL site. I have had plenty of help, but still haven’t been able to play a game. I think that the biggest deficiencies are 1) The variety of versions of both the engine and modules and the problems of trying to achieve common ground to play a game; 2) The lack of detailed documentation to explain how to play. I would like something that explains to a non-computer person exactly what and how to do things. I haven’t found that yet.
Get some non-computer type who doesn’t already know VASSAL to stumble through playing a game and listen to the questions that he raises. That should give you a good idea of the deficiencies.
I believe that the point being made here is that it need not cost the
publisher anything, as there are people lining up to do it for free if
only the publisher would give them permission. (This is a situation very
similar to harware manufacturers refusing to give specs to people who
want to develop Linux drivers for their hardware.)
There are two different discussions being conflated here. One concerns
what rights the publisher has, and the other concerns applying pressure
to publishers not to exercise what rights they have (or don’t).
With respect to what rights the publisher has under copyright law in the
USA, it has never been clear to me at all. How those rights differ in other
countries I have no idea. It might well be the case that some modules which
have been taken down out of courtesy to the publisher would be defensible
as fair use, but I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say for certain.
With respect to the exercise of whatever rights publishers have under
copyright law: If a publisher has the right in some jurisdiction to block
distribution of a game module, then it’s in our interests (and, I would
argue, the long-term interests of the publisher) to encourage the publisher
not to exercise that right. You can frame this as a fairness issue if you
like, or as a “getting what you paid for” issue, or as it being in the long
term interest of the publisher not to hinder people from playing their games,
but ultimately I see this as a strategy issue. What is the best way to
convince publishers not to hinder customers from playing their games as
they choose?
The thing of this interesting debate is both sides have valid points to one degree or another.
The ugliness of it is the key word that showed up during it somewhere and what it all boils down to at the end of the day (in my mind):
Money.
Ideally, publishers should be shown that community efforts do not cost them expense if they selectively choose well regarded volunteers in the craft that are willing to devote their free time to manage the resource for their product (and there are plenty of quality module makers in this category), and in return the community actively supports the publishers endeavors, by buying their physical products and demanding any supplied aides by said volunteers match a level of quality worthy of the publishers work and name or fixed promptly.
A further stretch (if needed) in favor for the publisher would be to give them some method of guaging all this effectiveness so they can see and use that info for possible future products, as well as have some weigh in for things they would like to also see.
Currently all changes are user requests / programmer ideas - a third type ‘publisher requests’ can be beneficial as they are in the business of making games and know what they would like to see the aides do themselves n’est ces pas?
Very utopian ideal for sure, but not a stretch of the imagination. I’ll go back to dreaming now
“I believe that the point being made here is that it need not cost the
publisher anything, as there are people lining up to do it for free if
only the publisher would give them permission.”
I have asked on ConsimWorld for those experienced with VASSAL to contact L2DG and volunteer their services. But that doesn’t mean that L2DG will provide VASSAL modules in the future without cost. I do not know what plans L2DG has or how they plan to implement them. You might ask Michael Kiefte. He has been working with Art Lupinacci of L2DG.
Personally, I have made ADC2 modules at no cost for Decision Games. They in turn chose to sell the modules despite my appeal to them to release them without charge.
So now we are back at the copyright issue again.
“With respect to what rights the publisher has under copyright law in the
USA, it has never been clear to me at all. How those rights differ in other
countries I have no idea. It might well be the case that some modules which
have been taken down out of courtesy to the publisher would be defensible
as fair use, but I am not a lawyer, so I cannot say for certain.”
First off, L2DG is a Canadian company; so USA copyright laws are not an essential issue.
If taking down or hiding a module “out of courtesy” is an issue, then don’t do it. Most companies do not have the resources to resort to litigation. But, those that do could signal the end of the VASSAL “community.” Is it worth the risk? Best check with Rodney Kinney before answering.
Fair use (USA) does not allow for free distribution of legitimate copyrighted products. Fair use does define what can be done with copyrighted products without approval of the copyright holder.
“What is the best way to convince publishers not to hinder customers from playing their games as they choose?”
Discuss this with Michael Kiefte. Sometimes a strong attack solicits a strong defense. Perhaps a softer and more respectful approach to those companies may help. Certainly, posting their products without their consent does not seem to me to be helpful.
On Mon, August 18, 2008 2:19 pm, Charles McLellan wrote:
Effectively, it’s the same thing. If I can make a tool that’s needed on
both ends of the link, but I can’t give it to the person on the other end
of the link, I can’t use it either.
Note that this is making my own tool, not transforming the ADC module.
I don’t buy that as a reasonable comparison. Perhaps this is the heart of
our disagreement? You seem to be treating the on-line ‘game’ as another
full-fledged product, based on the same ideas as the board game. I, and I
suspect a lot of others here, view it as an aid to playing the board game
I already own, akin to a simplified summary of the rules, collected sheet
of tables, FAQ document, etc.
If you want to go with the book analogy, I’m not seeing a module as the
movie of the book. I’m seeing it more as the ‘Cliff Notes’ - and claiming
that no-one else other than publisher can even write notes in the margin
to help understand the book before lending it to a friend.
Completely. If the publisher has incurred costs to make a module, has
chosen to sell it, and you want to use that module, you should pay for
it. However, if you’ve bought the physical game, and you want to make
your own module, you should be free to do so.
I don’t think anyone’s been advocating that - in fact I’d say the
community has been pretty responsive in removing content at the request of
the publishers, and then griping about it.
I strongly disagree here. Since business is all about selling products to
make money, the best way to tell a company that they’re not providing the
product you want, or in the way you want, is not to buy their product.
You’re mixing up two points here.
The ADC module that the publisher has comissioned is clearly their
copyright, and obviously you can’t distribute it.
A module based on the board game you already own is in much more
disputable legal territory. Games are not inherently copyrightable in
many jurisdictions. The rules text is, but modules typically don’t
include it. The artwork is, but it’s quite possible to make a module with
home-grown, public domain or generic art. Trademarks are another
possibility, but I don’t know how many companies (outside of the obvious
Hasbro / Monopoly scale) trademark their game names.
As to “what’s being blocked?” - well, have you seen some of the
community-produced modules here? The functionality is fabulous. Take a
look at something like Twilight Struggle for the extreme - somuch of
the hard work is taken care of for you, in a very slick interface. Even
the modules that don’t go that far have a lot of individual work to make
sure everything works as intended. Having customers going out of their
way to add value to your product at no cost is something most companies
would be happy about!
Some people like to have control over the quality of the modules and reserve final approval for distribution of the module. For many of these people, this entails commercial distribution. I’m not defending that position, but this is a very common sentiment.
That’s not the same thing. Linux drivers will not decrease sales and will probably increase sales of computer hardware. You can’t use the drivers without the hardware and vice versa. That doesn’t apply to game modules. One company in particular (not L2–although they share the sentiment no doubt) has complained that people have downloaded living rules and have copied the computer modules without ever having to pay for anything related to the development of the product. I can understand how that would leave a sour taste in your mouth and contributes to the mistrust of Internet gaming (that’s my own inference, however). That wouldn’t happen with Linux drivers.
Ideally the computer module would be included with the game itself (that was the case with TRC4), but that’s fairly impractical as most developers want to get the physical game out on the shelf ASAP.
And just to introduce another perspective: game designers are virtually volunteers as it is. There’s almost zero money in that business. Most of the money goes into recouping costs and barely that. There are no Stephen Kings in the wargame business. I don’t really begrudge paying $15 for a computer module. I’ve spent $15 on far more useless things (like 10 L of gas).
I believe in this case you could just have refused to grant them license
to distribute your module. This is precisely the situation w/r/t things
like source code. If you don’t grant permission to redistribute, then
they can’t do so legally. On this point I feel I understand the law (in
the USA) much better, having dealt with software licenses a lot. You are
in a position to demand here, not just request.
It is if L2DG wants to enforce copyright against someone somewhere else,
since Canadian copyright law couldn’t apply outside of Canada.
I say it’s out of courtesy because I think we could take a much harder
line if we wanted to. It’s not clear to me at all that we want to, but
we couldn’t stop someone else who was determined to host these modules
elsewhere.
Yes, I realize that, but that doesn’t answer the fundamental question, which
is: What does fair use actually permit in practice? My impression is that
Honestly, I think it’s better not to have this discussion. We have it with
some regularity, an it seems never to accomplish anything or convince anyone,
only to raise everyone’s hackles. The effort spent typing on this thread
would have been better spent writing documentation, e.g.
Decision Games: The ADC2 modules that I made for them were of their copyrighted games, not mine. At least they didn’t charge me to keep the modules that I made.
Copyrights: Games, at least in the USA, are copyrighted and the copyrights can be registered to increase penalties. Game methods cannot be copyrighted. Some games can be patented and many games contain trademarks. Copyrights, patents, and trademarks are all similar in that they involve the works of others, but each are handled a bit differently. Components of games may or may not be copyrighted depending upon whether significant work is involved in their development. I think that it is best to remember that copyright laws are designed to protect the significant works prepared or owned by others. When you copy the significant works of others without their permission, you are violating copyright laws.
Fair Use: I like Brad Templeton’s explanation of “fair use” in paragraph 4 on his web site at templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html. More detailed specifics are available from his article or by just searching “fair use” topic.
Your modules perhaps contained their copyrighted material, but also most
likely contained copyrighted material of yours. This is covered under
copyright of compilations, I believe.
If we were talking about a VASSAL module, I would say that the buildFile
meets the three conditions listed there. There is surely something in an
ADC2 module which also meets those conditions.
“Your modules perhaps contained their copyrighted material, but also most likely contained copyrighted material of yours. This is covered under
copyright of compilations, I believe.”
I know that this may not be understood by many, but I liked the games for which I made the modules – Desert Fox/Trail of the Fox, and Army Group South. I made ADC2 copies of them so that I could play with them; both with and without an opponent. I wasn’t looking for and didn’t want compensation. I gave the modules free and clear for DG’s use. Unfortunately, DG charges for the modules, but they did have to make copies for distribution.
I think you’re misunderstanding why I mentioned that. I was pointing out that
you hold copyright over the modules you made not because I was expecting you
to demand compensation for them. I was pointing that out in response to your
claim that you couldn’t do more than ask DG to make your modules available
freely. It would have been within your rights to deny them permission to
distribute your modules if they were going to charge for them
You are missing my point. I wanted the modules distributed so that I could play the games with others. For me to distribute myself would have violated their copyrights.
To withdraw my permission for them to distribute if they did not do so without charge would have voided my purpose in making the modules in the first place.
I’m not suggesting that you should have distributed the modules yourself.
I’m not suggesting that you should have withdrawn your permission for DG to
distribute your modules. I’m suggesting that you should have threatened to
withdraw your permission. Those are not the same thing.
Probably shouldn’t hit the “Quick Reply” button after more than 5 years, but still… Well the situation changed and as the original posting was regarding Streets of Stalingrad, I should bring an ending to this topic. L2, will still in business, is somewhat dormant. The copyright for the SoS game reverted to its original author, Dana Lombard, who gave permission for the VASSAL module of the game to be posted. Subsequently, I did post a VASSAL module of SoS to VASSAL’s library.
