Re: [Epic] New Game Grumbles

From: Jason Stephensen <J.Stephensen_at_...>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 1997 14:04:50 +1000 (EST)

>> The word plagarism was used against people at school and Uni for
>>people that commited such acts.
>
>And copyright infringement is used in the legal system. Plagiarism
>generally refers to non-copyrighted stuff.

OK there are a lot of rules that have not been so clearly copyrighted by
companies like GZG, so GW is able to take the suppresion counters, rename
them and use the very same concept, but take the concept as their own.
Taking someone to court over this is a very difficult, as it is a hard thing
to prove.

>Okay, this will sum up my arguments:
>1) Of course, they are very controlling with their copyrights, as it is
>their property. You wouldn't expect them to give away the cash they have in
>the bank, whould you? No. Because it is _their_ property.

OK, this is what GW did to their old minnie designers. They still owned the
copyrights to the figures that they created. What GW did was redo the
minnies to look very similar to the designers minnies. They then copyrighted
their "new" figures and told the old designers that if they ever produced
figures that looked like their "new" figures, they'd take them to court, and
that they had the money to back themselves there. The designers didn't. So
they effectively could not produce their own figures which they had the
rights to as they were close to the "new" GW figures. Being very pissed off
with GW, they left and helped Warzone set up their minnies. What GW did was
claim someone else's work basically as their own and threaton them away from
using the rights of their own work. They had the financial backing to do so.
GW is not a very nice employer to it's lower employees believe you me. Ask
anyone that works in their stores. (privately at least, not where the
manager will hear them)

>2) If they were infringing on Ground Zero Games copyrights (or anyone
>else's), then you can be sure they would at LEAST be served with a cease and
>desist order, and most likely be sued for damages. Obviously, they are not
>infringing.

GZG is a small company and is busy trying to make their own games. They
don't have the financial backing to try to fight GW. Just ask the guys that
made Kryomek, you never win. And considering that the game hasn't officailly
been released, GZG might not know what GW has done.

>3) If the designers did ANY work at all on the figs you say GW stole from
>them using GW time or materials, or while under contract, then the work
>belongs to GW. If they were able to obtain the copyright, then obviuosly
>they proved it in a court of law, or it was uncontested.

Check above for GW's answer to this.

>4) There is such a thing as "public domain." We had a discussion about 2
>months ago about where the term "lasgun" came from. Someone maintained that
>the single place it had been seen was in Herbert's _Dune_ series. Yet the
>term is such an obvious sci-fi concept that there is no way it would ever
>receive a copyright (now, anyway). If you want to maintain a copyright on
>terms like that you have to absolutely nail it down and protect it from all
>comers. Incidentally, Marvel Comics did this with the term "superhero."
>Anyway, I have yet to see anything that GW ripped off that wasn't a very
>general sci-fi concept.

OK, well I differ when it comes to the amount of ideas and concept that GW
just takes off others and claims them as their own.

>Temp
>
>
>
============================================================
                 Colonel Abrahms, 22nd NU-Atol Regiment
                 Rekartot Redbacks Senior Coach
                   "No Spanky, No. Bad monkey"
=========================================================
                email J.Stephensen_at_...
Received on Thu Jan 01 1970 - 00:00:00 UTC