they might have it'd be interesting to see if they could have but i dont think it matters because in the iterations after they even started with that backstory of "frictionless boots" and changed the physics mechanics multiple times but kept the colloquial skiing term as part of their game
it amazes me how some sperg like tpk wants to fixate on taking the colloquial title skiing literally when it could have just been termed niggering, sliding, bunny hopping, or any other community driven slang term instead and is making direct comparisons to sports skiing games in essay form
Yes, the concept of sliding down hills is surely an incredibly unique and copyrightable form of movement... much like "walking up hills," or "rope climbing," or "hovering".
Surely these things can be forever copyrighted...
The moment the makers of SSX tried to create a character that was sliding down a hill on a frictionless device, they were legally shut down.
the argument wasnt that skiing is a unique game trait. quake 3 and team fortress have bunny hopping
its that the method in which the skiing is implemented in tribes could be proprietary just a billion other things. even if they arent uniquely copywritten the amalgamation of them is under the tribes IP. how that's defined and what is copywritten we don't know, but it most likely extends far beyond just the title and has 18 years of built up legal definitions behind it. all that hirez purchased.
on top of that just the overall impression a person could get from the gameplay could be enough to have a law suit happen over significant similarity or modification IP protection clauses
they might have it'd be interesting to see if they could have but i dont think it matters because in the iterations after they even started with that backstory of "frictionless boots" and changed the physics mechanics multiple times but kept the colloquial skiing term as part of their game
it amazes me how some sperg like tpk wants to fixate on taking the colloquial title skiing literally when it could have just been termed niggering, sliding, bunny hopping, or any other community driven slang term instead and is making direct comparisons to sports skiing games in essay form
yeah def after T2 it's part of 'the game' as intended but that would have been a cool court case to play out
i think the T1 devs said they 'discovered skiing during testing and left it in intentionally' so they might have still had a pretty good claim on it
still tho i think hirez would have trouble proving that their gameplay elements are unique, but its true they could tie any small company up forever (just like anyone with a lot of money could) in court
the name 'Tribes' was the biggest part of what hires paid for, as far as i know they got very few assets in the buy, snippets of source code here and there but nothing even close to complete iirc
yeah its not that in the end hirez would be correct in their copyright claim
its that they could bleed a small company out for years happily or force them to fold
or if its really fucked and they get some biased old scum judge thats never played a video game could get a ruling in their favor
i know hirez paid for the tribes name and got very little code but one thing that most likely was easy to dig up was any IP connected to that name because it was probably all in the same documents held by the same lawyers that were dealing with title in the first place. it'd all be under the IP. this is why they used titles like diamond sword and blood eagle.
all ive been trying to say is that this seems like gambling with fire and an easy way to get fucked over in court. and thats only because its an attempt at a for profit game. if it was community released for free like legions or anything else there would be no problem
also i posted two dang primers on how IP law has been used in video games in the past that any of you could read and see how this could potentially work out
but in the end the fact that it went to court and most likely ended in out of court settlement can potentially fuck over project z simply because of the legal costs associated
tpk y ru cutting my quotes up to try to argue some bullshit you're obviously wrong on
go write another essay about tribes skiing being the same as real life sports skiing
machine guns arent a unique gimmick to video games, "skiing is" and even if specific things aren't copywritten the significant similarity and modification rights of copyright holders allow for a creative interpretation of anything similar
Would you rather I just use full quotes with BOLD? I didn't modify anything you wrote at all. You're insinuation that I twisted anything you wrote is a deception.
Nice red herring, but my argument is that "sliding down a hill," regardless of what you call it, is not copyrightable.
And no, I'm not wrong.
Let the long list of video games involving "sliding down hills" with nobody being sued serve as "obvious" hard evidence.
Perhaps you can present your opposing list of games that had "sliding down hills" that went to court as your counter evidence?
*crickets*
Or perhaps you can list any single video game in history that went to court for using the same "movement physics" as another game and lost?
We'll all be waiting.
If it's so obvious that you are correct, then go ahead and link us to one single case of this happening. Should be easy since you're totally correct, meaning there would be dozens of cases like this, if not hundreds.
If you present an article where somebody got sued and lost because they used "jumping" "climbing" "sliding" or "ducking", I will eat my words and accept immediate defeat.
k i get it u didnt read the thread and dont understand how easy it is for a corporation to take an indi game dev to court over an IP violation. i cant keep repeating the same shit over and over again. either read the thread and the examples i gave of companies doing this or go back to therapy or whatever it is you did to stop being super manic.
k i get it u didnt read the thread and dont understand how easy it is for a corporation to take an indi game dev to court over an IP violation. i cant keep repeating the same shit over and over again. either read the thread and the examples i gave of companies doing this or go back to therapy or whatever it is you did to stop being super manic.
All you're doing is show that you have no idea what was in those articles, nor do you understand the reality of what takes place in these sorts of cases.
Sure man, it's easy to take someone to court these days over just about anything. It's also easy to lose and get countersued.
In the articles you linked:
"Rutgers' Greg Lastowka tells Gamasutra that it's clear that Zynga's The Ville has copied from The Sims Social, from its use of very similar "personality type" choices to elements of character behavior and appearance."
A "personality type" and "similar appearance" are NOT movement mechanics.
You cannot take anyone to court for using "jumping," "sliding down hills," or anything like that. If you try, you will lose.
And guess what, EA lost (huge shock). Then Zynga countersued and received a worthy settlement from EA. EA got crushed.
"Zynga countersued a month later, calling the lawsuit "baseless." "
"No further information is available, though a source told the site that Zynga is "pleased" with the settlement terms. "
That is exactly what will happen if HiReZ takes Project Z to court, and the makers of project Z know this and are probably even hoping it happens.
So long as they don't name the game "tribes," refrain from using exact names or symbols like "Blood Eagle", or "disc launcher," they will be completely untouchable.
How do you think all of these freaking World of Warcraft clones exist?
You know next to nothing on this issue, and you clearly didn't even read your own articles.
Otherwise you wouldn't have posted them, as they do not in any way support your case, and in fact do the exact opposite!
Zynga made bank off of getting sued by EA.
"Wow, look out Project Z! Watch what happens! Read my articles as proof that you need to be careful! You might get sued and then be able to countersue and make shit tons of money! Making shit tons of money is horrible! You might get totally rich! Look out!" - Dare
"Tries to prove that Project Z needs to be careful cus of "sliding down hill mechanic" by posting articles about how a big company sued a small one over "similar appearance", fell flat on its face, got countersued, and had to pay the small corporation tons of money."
the zynga countersuit was over ea contractually obliging employees not to switch companies and join zynga which was a breach of the original settlement. the countersuit had nothing to do with copyright and both settlements never listed monetary payouts
this was over 2 years of court and zynga is a multimillion dollar indi dev for web games like farmville and mafia wars they had millions of dollars and more than enough money to fight ea in court these project z people dont have that type of cash on hand
also your interpretation of the significantly similar rights of copyright law is based around autistic fanboyism and makes no sense but that isnt the point
the fact that these project z guys can be brought to court and forced to pay their own court costs is how they get bled out
Sept. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Zynga Inc., the biggest developer of games played on Facebook Inc., claimed Electronic Arts Inc. demanded an improper no-hire agreement to staunch executive defections from EA and threatened to file sham lawsuits when Zynga refused.
EA’s chief executive officer, John Riccitiello, instructed company lawyers to get an agreement from Zynga prohibiting future hiring of EA employees as part of an “anticompetitive and unlawful scheme” that violates California’s unfair competition law, Zynga attorneys said today in filings in San Francisco federal court.
the zynga countersuit was over ea contractually obliging employees not to switch companies and join zynga which was a breach of the original settlement. the countersuit had nothing to do with copyright and both settlements never listed monetary payouts
EA lost the case. All that article shows is that it's extremely difficult to successfully sue a similar video game. If a super rich, evil, and diabolical company like EA fails at it when they have a "really great case," then what hope would other companies have?
If you wanted to prove that Project Z is going to get sued and destroyed, why on Earth would you post an article where an incredibly well-equipped company tried to sue, fell flat on their face, and got their asses wooped for trying?
In present-day law, it is upheld that game mechanics of a video game are part of its software, and are generally ineligible for copyright.[15] The United States Copyright Office specifically notes: "Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game. Once a game has been made public, nothing in the copyright law prevents others from developing another game based on similar principles."[16] The underlying source code, and the game's artistic elements, including art, music, and dialog, can be protected by copyright law.
How in the fark can you post all those pages of junk without first reading and knowing the actual law?
See that part up there where it says game mechanics are ineligible for copyright? What that means is that game mechanics are ineligible for copyright.
Read it read it read it, and then read it again, and then chill the frick out with all that ridiculousness.
Personally I think it's more likely that giant caterpillars would start ransacking stripclubs under the name of the great white Elephant chief named Fartboy, but sure, why not?
Anything can happen I guess... Anyone can take anyone to court for anything...
Though if things went down that way, Project Z would have a clear, easy, concise victory. They might even end up cashing in heavily with some sort of countersue, just like in your article. They won't get bled out because a 10 dollar lawyer with chicken grease on his tie and a 5 dollar suit from a thrift store could win that case because of what the law says.
Your argument that Project Z will get destroyed because of similar game mechanics is entirely erroneous, sorry man.
Game... mechanics... can't... be... copyrighted... (see law)
I don't know why I love you enough to spend time with you Dare.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
