Yatta
10-13-2008, 01:08 AM
http://forums.penny-arcade.com/showpost.php?p=7415327&postcount=33
HOLY SHIT
This is the BEST COINCIDENCE EVER
So I'm sitting here studying for my Copyright course which I'm taking (law school), and I SHIT YOU NOT I'm half way through tomorrow's reading assignment and guess what court case pops up in this book:
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5422/copyright1ay9.jpg
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/114/copyright2ek6.jpg
Micro Star v. Formgen, Inc.
154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998)
Micro Star involved another videogame, Duke Nukem 3D, a first person "shooter" game that comes with 29 "levels" of play. The game also included a "Build Editor" which allowed users to design their own levels. Formgen, the copyright owner, encouraged users to post new levels to the internet for others to download for free. Micro Star downloaded 300 user-made levels and stamped them onto a CD which it then sold commercially as Nuke It . Judge Kozinski described how the game worked as follows:
The game consists of three separate components: the game engine, the source art library and the MAP files... In order to create the audiovisual display for a particular level, the game engine invokes the MAP file that corresponds to that level. Each MAP file contains a series of instructions that tell the game engine (and, through it, the computer) what to put where... The MAP file describes the level in painstaking detail, but it does not actually contain any of the copyrighted art itself; everything that appears on the screen actually comes from the art library... when the player selects one of teh Nuke It levels, the game engine references the Nuke It MAP files, but still uses the Duke Nukem 3d art library to generate the images that make up the level
Id. at 1110. Micro Star argued that the MAP files were like the Game Genie, in that they only temporarily altered the play of the game. The court disagreed, holding that the MAP files which defined the new audiovisual displays were sufficiently "concrete or permanent" to qualify as derivative works. Id. at 1111-12. Micro Star also argued that the new MAP files did not incorporate any of the protected expression of the original work, because although the MAP files referenced the Duke3d art library, they did not themselves contain any images. Again the court disagreed, saying "a copyright owner holds the right to create sequels, and the stories told in the Nuke It MAP files are surely sequels, telling new (through somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures." Id. at 1112.
Wow. That is ******* funny.
Funny because I'm in law school and a case pops up about Duke Nukem 3D. Funny also because this thread happens to be here. At the same time that we're covering this particular thing in class. hah.
it's also funny to hear how these courts talk about stuff like this in their court opinions.
HOLY SHIT
This is the BEST COINCIDENCE EVER
So I'm sitting here studying for my Copyright course which I'm taking (law school), and I SHIT YOU NOT I'm half way through tomorrow's reading assignment and guess what court case pops up in this book:
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/5422/copyright1ay9.jpg
http://img360.imageshack.us/img360/114/copyright2ek6.jpg
Micro Star v. Formgen, Inc.
154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998)
Micro Star involved another videogame, Duke Nukem 3D, a first person "shooter" game that comes with 29 "levels" of play. The game also included a "Build Editor" which allowed users to design their own levels. Formgen, the copyright owner, encouraged users to post new levels to the internet for others to download for free. Micro Star downloaded 300 user-made levels and stamped them onto a CD which it then sold commercially as Nuke It . Judge Kozinski described how the game worked as follows:
The game consists of three separate components: the game engine, the source art library and the MAP files... In order to create the audiovisual display for a particular level, the game engine invokes the MAP file that corresponds to that level. Each MAP file contains a series of instructions that tell the game engine (and, through it, the computer) what to put where... The MAP file describes the level in painstaking detail, but it does not actually contain any of the copyrighted art itself; everything that appears on the screen actually comes from the art library... when the player selects one of teh Nuke It levels, the game engine references the Nuke It MAP files, but still uses the Duke Nukem 3d art library to generate the images that make up the level
Id. at 1110. Micro Star argued that the MAP files were like the Game Genie, in that they only temporarily altered the play of the game. The court disagreed, holding that the MAP files which defined the new audiovisual displays were sufficiently "concrete or permanent" to qualify as derivative works. Id. at 1111-12. Micro Star also argued that the new MAP files did not incorporate any of the protected expression of the original work, because although the MAP files referenced the Duke3d art library, they did not themselves contain any images. Again the court disagreed, saying "a copyright owner holds the right to create sequels, and the stories told in the Nuke It MAP files are surely sequels, telling new (through somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures." Id. at 1112.
Wow. That is ******* funny.
Funny because I'm in law school and a case pops up about Duke Nukem 3D. Funny also because this thread happens to be here. At the same time that we're covering this particular thing in class. hah.
it's also funny to hear how these courts talk about stuff like this in their court opinions.