Dan, Soren, Jeff....please take a peek here....:)

[Mannamagnus]

Isn't life wonderful

[Expatriate]

Just a quick comment:

Originally posted by Libertarian
Infogrames, owning the name "Civilization" and variants as well as certain intellectual items with respect to the game may, as is well precedented, establish who may and who may not publish its official strategy guide.

Its actually not possible to own the rights to an ordinary word. Its a trademark, meaning that others cant publish a game called the same. But noone can prevent you from writing a book called "Civilization Strategy Guide" or selling a candybar called "Civilization Bar". Just make sure you dont use any logos or other copyrighted things that belongs to others.

This discussion actually reminds me of a situation that happened during the launch of the MMORPG "Anarchy Online". A guy that called himself "Derisor" on the boards got unlucky and found that someone else created a character called just that ingame. Since the games doesnt allow duplicate names he couldnt get that name for himself. He then started threathning the other player with lawsuits because he claimed to have copyrighted the name. The resident law experts on the boards were fast the point out that a name or single cant be copyrighted

[Velociryx]

The more I'm reading here, the more confident I am about continuing with my own work....thanks everyone....

-=Vel=-

[sophist]

Originally posted by MarkG
hmm, well Vel, the hurricane guys were not simply talking strategy, they were selling something for which prima had payed to get the exclusive rights....

i wonder though if these rights are for eternity or... less

They can't do that. They don't have a legal leg to stand on. Freedom of speech and all that. Now, Infogrames might be able to get somewhere by stating Hurricane couldn't use the trademark "Civilization III," but I think even in that case they don't have that much power.

Originally posted by Libertarian

What exactly is wrong with the inoffensive ethic of greed? Why is profit bad? Why ought not the owners of property be the proprietors of rights with respect to it?

Greed's not so bad. But ownership is not viral; just because they own the "Civilization III" trademarks, copyrights, etc. does not mean that they immediately own and control everything that comes about as a result. This site, for example, is dedicated to Civilization games, but that doesn't mean that Microprose/Hasbro/Infogrames/... can tell Apolyton what to do. Actually, I think that your libertarian outlook would see things this way; I know mine does. The important part to recognize here is where Infogrames property rights end and someone else's begin. For property to be meaningful and practical, there have to be limits on one's rights with regards to property (a seemingly self-contradictory statement, I acknowledge, but also truth).

Originally posted by Libertarian
gaikokujin,

Thanks for the lecture, however gratuitous. Libertarianism — or opposition to the initiation of force and fraud — is not lacking in a definition and contextualization of property. Infogrames, owning the name "Civilization" and variants as well as certain intellectual items with respect to the game may, as is well precedented, establish who may and who may not publish its official strategy guide. Prima, having secured exclusivity, was understandably miffed when a third party undercut its rights, which rights were extended by the property's owner.

I'm not defending anything about Prima or Infogrames here other than what I've stated. I don't know whether their strategy guides are worth the money or not. Frankly, I'm satisfied with what I've learned from Vel's compendium of notes. But rights with respect to property (the only rights that are ontologically relevant) may not be abridged solely because the rights holder is stupid.

Prima cannot secure exclusivity because Infogrames does not have control over what others say about Civilization III. Infogrames does not own exclusivity so they cannot sell exclusivity to Prima, and so Prima cannot prevent anyone from publishing their thoughts and opinions thereon. Now, they have control over what the official one is, but that's a matter of truth versus falsehood, as if Hurricane claimed they were the official guide, then that would imply they were endorsed by Infogrames, which is obviously not the case. But then, they never did that. I'm all for property rights and the free market, but ownership is not absolute.

If I wasn't unemployed (and getting poorer by the minute), I'd want to publish a guide just to put Infogrames back in their place.

Originally posted by Expatriate

Its actually not possible to own the rights to an ordinary word. Its a trademark, meaning that others cant publish a game called the same. But noone can prevent you from writing a book called "Civilization Strategy Guide" or selling a candybar called "Civilization Bar". Just make sure you dont use any logos or other copyrighted things that belongs to others.

Is that completely correct? I believe you can have a trademark on an ordinary word in a particular context. While Infogrames could not block a Civilization Candy Bar, they could prevent anyone from creating a computer game (perhaps any software or board game as well) called "Civilization" or with that word in its title on the grounds that it would create confusion in the minds of consumers etc. etc. But in the strategy guide case, if they prominently state that they are not endorsed and they give proper credit for trademark ownership and so forth, I can't see how Infogrames could stop them. Besides out-spending them on lawyers (who really ought to have better professional standards of behavior to punish those who go along with tripe like this).

[Libertarian]

Vel,

Perhaps the advice given here is not the most steady advice available to you. One set of "gamers" has already demonstrated an incredible legal naivite.

Why not consult professional legal advice if you truly intend to invest the time and effort into your project? Most such initial consultations are gratis, and if you have a legal let to stand on, it will be because the attorney with whom you consult smells money down the road. In just a few minutes, you'll know exactly where you stand. And where you can go.

[Libertarian]

Just to be sure you understand, I'm not trying to disuade you from writing your book. I'm just saying that you're likely to find more reliable advice elsewhere. This is not a matter to toy with or take lightly. You've no idea the grief that awaits you if you do not strategize this project at least as thoughtfully as you would strategize a game of Civ.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Libertarian
Just to be sure you understand, I'm not trying to disuade you from writing your book. I'm just saying that you're likely to find more reliable advice elsewhere. This is not a matter to toy with or take lightly. You've no idea the grief that awaits you if you do not strategize this project at least as thoughtfully as you would strategize a game of Civ.

Based on my (non-professional, but pretty good for a layman) understanding of the law, he'd be in the clear. I mean, think about the implications of this sort of thing being illegal for a while. That would be some seriously bad mojo. The issue here isn't who's right. Infogrames could outspend any of us long before a judge dismissed the case as frivolous. Well, unless you caught the attention of the ACLU or EFF, in which case Infogrames would have be in it deep.

[Heliodorus]

Originally posted by gaikokujin

Should be _When_ is profit bad? When it is _boundless_. Follow the logic, see below.

The word, 'property', has no meaning in the abstract. When you see the word, 'property', think, _whose_ property? Actual property only has a real existence when it is the property of _sombody_ (or a group of sombodies). As we know from John Locke, property adheres to persons as a result of their labor in producing particular forms of property. This gives property definite _bounds_.


[insert ideological apologetics for crony gangster (read: lawyer) capitalism, U.S. - style]

Obviously you're very well versed in the philosophy of property and the legality of it, too. My thought on your post and on the concept of the publishing deal addressed herein is that what the Prima guys are claiming as property is not their strategy guide, per se, but their property is the right to make a profit through a book about Civ3 (whatever the meaningless content may be).

I don't think Prima has a leg to stand on when it comes to anyone publishing anything for free on the Internet (so you GO, Vel, GO!) (or were you intending to try to recover some of your effort by charging?). But when someone charges for their version of a strat guide, they infringe on Prima's exclusive right to profit from publishing garbage austencibly blessed as useful Civ3 info.

As for Prima's "guides," they are handy with RPGs most of the time (I particularly liked their Icewind Dale guide), but with a game the scope of Civ3, or MMORPGs, they are worse than useless. I have their Everquest guide, which has about 200 pages of fluff and about 25 useful pages of spells and maps. I learned my lesson - go to the web for your guides.

[Velociryx]

The ultimate plan is to follow the same basic format that I used when putting the SMAC(x) guide together.

Post TONS of ideas and observations in the forums here, get involved in detailed and in-depth discussions about game mechanics....what works and what doesn't (and why/why not!), find ways of stressing and/or breaking the current system, etc.

And, when I've got 100,000-odd coherent and hopefully entertaining words on the subject, put a fancy coat of paint on it, polish it till it's glowing, add in any tables that might be appropriate, shortcut sheets, and a fistful of goodies I wrote but kept to myself as surprises for the readers of the finished work, and then haul the whole thing to a publisher to create an actual, saleable book out of it.

In this way, I feel two important groups are served:

First, the strategy guide is NOT developed in a vaccuum. All the ideas in what eventually becomes the guide are put to forum to be discussed and dissected. LOTS of folks test them (with, predictably, varrying degrees of success), and then come back to report on whether it worked or not and why, which leads to still more refinements and additional rounds of discussion....

Ultimately then, what you end up with is a collection of ideas that have been thoroughly tested and refined by the gaming community as a whole. Thus, a large portion of the body of work that eventually becomes the Civ-Guide will already be common knowledge here. No need to go out and buy the book when you participated firsthand in the discussion that swirled around its creation!

However, having said that, numerous people find something magical about holding that bound, finished product in their hands (I found that out during the SMAX project!). And that's really, really cool to me.

So...the distilled answer is this: I fully intend to carry on with my strategy threads and ongoing discussions. I am making careful notes of about every game I play, and am constantly refining my strategies and observations about the game.

Eventually, there'll be enough material for a book, and when there is, I intend to make one and market it. The truth is, most of my potential market is right here though, and everybody here will have already seen the lion's share of the material as it was slowly whipped into shape, which begs the question....will anybody wanna buy it when it's done?

So...that either makes me a really, totally foolish marketeer, or a completely brilliant one....jury's still out?

In terms of "marketing the product" though....for me at least, it's not about the money. It's never about the money. What it's about, at the core, is doing what I enjoy doing.

I'm certainly not gonna strong-arm anybody into buying the guide...lol...not my style.

But, the option will be there....worst case, I'm out a few hundred bucks to set all that up....

-=Vel=-

[Libertarian]

No, Vel, sorry. Worst case is that you're out many thousands of bucks, a case that is ever so simply averted merely by consulting professional legal opinion. Whatever you decide to do, all the best.

[Velociryx]

Yep....that part though, goes without saying. I intend to take a close look with a Lawyer at the legal ins and outs of it all, but....no need to do that just yet. I don't have anything that even *approaches* enough material, and what I DO have is in rough shape so far....but...when I'm closer, yes, that'll very definitely be a part of the process....

-=Vel=-
(who mighta been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night....the folk of Prima will not find me an easy target, I think)

[sophist]

Originally posted by Heliodorus

I don't think Prima has a leg to stand on when it comes to anyone publishing anything for free on the Internet (so you GO, Vel, GO!) (or were you intending to try to recover some of your effort by charging?). But when someone charges for their version of a strat guide, they infringe on Prima's exclusive right to profit from publishing garbage austencibly blessed as useful Civ3 info.

How is the right to publish an exclusive right to Prima? How can Infogrames control that? So, let's go through this logically. Can we say that making posts like in the strategy section is legal? I think we can all agree on that. Now, suppose someone wants to collect all those posts in one location. That is clearly acceptable too; it's barely different. Now, suppose there's redundancy, misspellings, bad grammar, and structural problems with this format. So some enterprising individual goes and distills all the content into a more neatly organized, cleanly edited, nicely formatted document. Same information, but presented much better. Clearly acceptable actions. Now, suppose some of the people who want to read this document don't have access to the web. Then you print out the document and send it to them. Also acceptable behavior. But wait... you incurred costs doing this favor for this person. You spent money on the paper, the toner/ink, and postage (call it a dollar). Surely it's ok for you to get reimbursed for those; you don't run a charity. Then there's the time you spend printing it out, stapling, folding, and mailing. Those are more ambigiuous costs, but time is the only currency any of us have. Your time should be made up somehow, so it's perfectly reasonable to tack on another 50 cents or so to account for your time, especially considering you might be doing this a dozen or more times. So now you're accepting money for a guide substantially written by you to a game you don't own. At what point in the chain did this become legal? At what point does Infogrames gain control over what you do? You're not profiting; you're covering your expenses, including your time. You're being very clear to demark who owns what, never claiming Civ3 or attendant trademarks and copyrights as your own. All you're doing is writing down what you think about a particular subject (namely Civ3) and sending it to other people who send you compensation for your time, materials, and effort.

[eclarkso]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Yep....that part though, goes without saying. I intend to take a close look with a Lawyer at the legal ins and outs of it all, but....no need to do that just yet. I don't have anything that even *approaches* enough material, and what I DO have is in rough shape so far....but...when I'm closer, yes, that'll very definitely be a part of the process....

-=Vel=-
(who mighta been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night....the folk of Prima will not find me an easy target, I think)

If you want my advice, don't call Tom Turnipseed or Bill Green, no matter what the back of the phone book says . Seriously, if you don't already have an attorney/firm in mind, my grandfather was a partner with what is now Haynsworth Sinkler Boyd, so I can recommend them (yes, I'm from Columbia too).

My apologies if you're related to Messrs. Green or Turnipseed . Good luck with the project, you're a much more patient man than I!

[Velociryx]

LOL! Sitting here at work, I almost fell out of my chair when I saw the names of Columbia lawyers in a post! Very cool to meet someone else from Columbia here on 'poly! (and to those of you not from 'round here, yes, we really do have a....er....hmmm.....I can't really say "prominent" but certainly well-known lawyer named....Turnipseed....

And thank you for the offer! I will be needing a hand with looking into the legalities of it all when it gets closer to time, so I'll take you up on that!

-=Vel=-

[Libertarian]

Sophist,

Logic? We're talking law here.