Rip-off tossers

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Back in the day, when I worked for Sensible Software, we put together an exclusive game for an Amiga Power coverdisk, called "Sensible Trainspotting". It was just a daft little thing, but fun nonetheless, and was obviously given away to the readers for free. Today, this thread:

http://www.rllmukforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23269

revealed that this company has directly copied the idea and gameplay mechanics, tarted up the graphics and is selling it for $16. Nowhere on the website, in the credits, in the readme or the scrolling message on the demo is there even the slightest acknowledgement of where the entire idea was swiped from. This pisses me off. Not so much the copying, but the lack of credit, and the charging money for a direct copy of a game which was created to be free.

I alerted former Sensible supremo Jon Hare, who described it as a "blatant fucking rip off", but said that having sold all Sensible game rights to Codemasters some time ago, he couldn't directly do anything about it himself and would have to leave it to the Codies. He invited me to have a go at them if I wanted, though. So I sent the company a short and not very rude note this morning, which has so far been entirely ignored.

So here's the question, because I'm genuinely a bit unsure. How heavily should I tackle it? The options are, as noted in the poll; to just hand it over to Codemasters, who are notoriously intolerant about infringement of their IP in any circumstances at all, and let their lawyers deal with it; to get stroppy with the company personally, but stop short of calling in the law (in other words, basically, bluff); or just let the whole thing go on the grounds that it's an ancient game, a trivial coverdisk freebie that's not worth protecting.

Be intrigued to hear the forum's opinions.

Oh, and Option 4, which I don't seem to be able to edit into the poll:

Buy it, then distribute it all over the web for free, and dare the fuckers to sue.

[Juria]

See see! I said it looked like it! I hope I was of help. It might be abandonware though. You'd have to check.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

See see! I said it looked like it! I hope I was of help. It might be abandonware though. You'd have to check.

"Abandonware" has no legal status. There's technically no such thing.

[David Kenny]

Would you be satisfied if they credited the original game on their site?

[Juria]

I'm up for Option 4, I love Sensible and have a strong sense of justice And I've got webspace if needed. But only if number 2 doesn't work. Number one would be a bit too harsh, unless they tell you to fuck off, then number one is fine.

[Silly Killer]

I don't understand how close a game can be to another one before sue-age can commence.

For example, a few years back I used to have a clone of Super Mario Kart on the PC called Wacky Wheels. That seemed pretty close in concept and execution, but presumably no-one was sued by Nintendo over it. It was a commercially-released game, and was almost the same as SMK - the main difference being the use of cute animals instead of Mario world characters. Another example is the plethora of home computer Space Invaders clones back in the 80s. Again, how many softcos were sued?

When a game truly innovates, both in terms of content and mechanics, and then sells well, a raft of copycats often appear (karting games, footy games, racing games, 3rd-person adventure in the wake of Tomb Raider etc. etc.)

The line between "similar" and "rip-off" in the eyes of a courtroom must be very fine indeed.

[Juria]

Read the first post again and pay special attention to 'credit'.

[Silly Killer]

Read the first post again and pay special attention to 'credit'.

Credit? Huh? How many games say "thanks to Nintendo whose karting game we ripped off." (or the less silly equivelant thereof).

If they did, they would be wide open for legal action, as they would be admitting they stole the concept.

I should clarify that my point was more general, not about the Reverend's specific situation.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Would you be satisfied if they credited the original game on their site?

Personally, I'd want it to be properly credited, and to be given away free from now on. I'd let them keep any money they've made so far.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Read the first post again and pay special attention to 'credit'.

Credit? Huh? How many games say "thanks to Nintendo whose karting game we ripped off." (or the less silly equivelant thereof).

There were go-karting games before Mario Kart, plus most of the clones have been sufficiently different to get away with it legally. (The simple fact of having different tracks and powerups goes a long way in that regard.) But with this being such a simple game, every single aspect of it is a straight ripoff, except the graphics are nicer. It's a pretty clear-cut case.

[Silly Killer]

Read the first post again and pay special attention to 'credit'.

Credit? Huh? How many games say "thanks to Nintendo whose karting game we ripped off." (or the less silly equivelant thereof).

There were go-karting games before Mario Kart, plus most of the clones have been sufficiently different to get away with it legally. (The simple fact of having different tracks and powerups goes a long way in that regard.) But with this being such a simple game, every single aspect of it is a straight ripoff, except the graphics are nicer. It's a pretty clear-cut case.

Ah, I see. Thanks.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

There is no © on ideas.

[Juria]

Unless youre microsoft and they try to keel you

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

There is no © on ideas.

So how come Atari got away with suing all those 8-bit companies over unlicensed Pac-Man clones, since they obviously didn't pinch the actual code?

[Venice Cull]

There is no © on ideas.

So how come Atari got away with suing all those 8-bit companies over unlicensed Pac-Man clones, since they obviously didn't pinch the actual code?

They didn't though did they?

I mean, the only one that springs to mind is 'Jelly Monsters' on the Vic 20. But it was only the threat of legal action that saw the game being pulled off the shelves.

Same with Great Giani Sisters. I can't recall a company being successfully 'sued' for ripping an idea off.

Using actual code though, that's a completely different matter.

I'm sure someone will now correct me.

[Poet]

Option 4 would be most satifying.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

Giana Sisters was a clone of SMB - clearly a © breach.

SMB is "ripped off" from PacLand. But it only nicks a few ideas not the content.

I haven't seen the Amiga train game so it's hard to make a judgement. As Stuart says with simple games like this the idea is pretty much everything. Not sure how you protect stuff like that outside of a patent application.

When I released the demo of Sticky Balls a few people claimed it was ripped off from E-Motion on the Amiga (it isn't) based on a couple of similar game elements.

[Ryan]

Even better: why not update the orginal then release it for free just to piss the greedy fuckers off ?

[Venice Cull]

Giana Sisters was a clone of SMB - clearly a © breach.

Legally? Like I said, the slightest wiff of a legal letter will have small companies running.

What I'm asking is, is there any legal precedent in the gaming industry where someone was successfully sued for ripping an idea off? (ignoring the joystick patents that Atari had).

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

Giana Sisters was a clone of SMB - clearly a © breach.

Legally? Like I said, the slightest wiff of a legal letter will have small companies running.

What I'm asking is, is there any legal precedent in the gaming industry where someone was successfully sued for ripping an idea off? (ignoring the joystick patents that Atari had).

Atari successfully got Acornsoft to withdraw their PacMan clone and replace it with one called "Snapper", which changed various things (character graphics, maze layout) to make it less like the original. They also got a Spectrum company to give up their PacMan clone and hand it over to Atari to tweak a bit and release as the official conversion. There are many other similar instances.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

Giana Sisters was a clone of SMB - clearly a © breach.

Legally? Like I said, the slightest wiff of a legal letter will have small companies running.

What I'm asking is, is there any legal precedent in the gaming industry where someone was successfully sued for ripping an idea off? (ignoring the joystick patents that Atari had).

Giana Sisters wasn't being done for the idea - they ripped off the CONTENT. Nintendo were ready to take them to court but they backed down instantly.

You CAN'T sue for copying an idea because that isn't a breach of anything (except possibly a Patent).

All the Kart games are based on the SMK formula\idea but they all have original content so they don't breach ©.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

Even better: why not update the orginal then release it for free just to piss the greedy fuckers off ?

They aren't "greedy fuckers" this is basically one amateur developer trying to make a few quid from his hobby.

[Venice Cull]

Giana Sisters wasn't being done for the idea - they ripped off the CONTENT. Nintendo were ready to take them to court but they backed down instantly.

Ideas/contents. All the same to me. Unless they ripped off the actual code of course. Who's to say Nintendo would have won had the case gone to court?

Like I said though, has there ever been a case where a company has been 'done' for nicking 'content/ideas' within the games industry?

This is all an aside from Stuarts problem of course, but it did raise an interesting question (in my head).

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

They aren't "greedy fuckers" this is basically one amateur developer trying to make a few quid from his hobby.

Yeah, but "his hobby" = "someone else's game, which he doesn't even have the decency to credit". I keep swinging between the sentiments, but as I say my preferred option is "Acknowledge the ripoff and stop selling it for money". That lets them keep going, use it as a skills demo, and let's face it it's probably not making much money anyway. Calling lawyers would probably squish them altogether. I think my option is pretty reasonable.

The Amiga game is linked in my post in the other thread, it works fine in UAE so you can see that they are absolutely and entirely the same game.

[Burai]

What I'm asking is, is there any legal precedent in the gaming industry where someone was successfully sued for ripping an idea off?

I don't think there ever has. Indeed, take Bleem Inc. for example. Sony sued them time and time again for basically ripping off the PSone BIOS in their emulation code, yet every single time the court was in favour of the defendant as their code contained no actual code from the BIOS and whilst it played PlayStation games, it wasn't a direct rip-off.

In the end, Bleem had to cease because Sony cleverly saw that they had more money than Bleem and thusly constantly taking them to court would eventually drive them under.

So really, unless this game has any of Sensi's original code in it, there would be no legal leg to stand on, and would gain nothing unless your motivation is wanting to take a shareware home programmer to repeated court hearings and bankrupting him over time.

[Rev. Stuart Campbell]

I don't think there ever has. Indeed, take Bleem Inc. for example. Sony sued them time and time again for basically ripping off the PSone BIOS in their emulation code, yet every single time the court was in favour of the defendant as their code contained no actual code from the BIOS and whilst it played PlayStation games, it wasn't a direct rip-off.

They're not really comparable situations. Bleem was a tool, not a game in itself.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

Ideas/contents. All the same to me.

But they aren't the same.

Super Mario Bros (just as an example not meant to be accurate):

Idea: Horizontally scrolling map with platforms & obstacles. Main character walks, runs, jumps, collects items. Aim is to safely reach the end of the level.

Content: Tiles, Sprites, Sounds, Level Designs

SMB broadly shares it's idea with PacLand but NONE of the content.

Giana Sisters copied BOTH.

Level design is pretty much = code in this context.

[Juria]

But it's really really cheeky to charge loads for a game that's not really his at all.

[JPickford (retired mod)]

They aren't "greedy fuckers"  this is basically one amateur developer trying to make a few quid from his hobby.

Yeah, but "his hobby" = "someone else's game, which he doesn't even have the decency to credit". I keep swinging between the sentiments, but as I say my preferred option is "Acknowledge the ripoff and stop selling it for money". That lets them keep going, use it as a skills demo, and let's face it it's probably not making much money anyway. Calling lawyers would probably squish them altogether. I think my option is pretty reasonable.

The Amiga game is linked in my post in the other thread, it works fine in UAE so you can see that they are absolutely and entirely the same game.

Ultimately, if he DID copy your game (and I'll take on trust that he did) then you are morally right.

Demonising the guy as a 'greedy fucker' (not your words I know) is misleading.

The first game I sold WAS a clone and I got (rightly) caught out. I did it fairly innocently as all games seemed to be clones back then. It taught me a valuable lesson and I've never copied a game since (even E- motion!).

[Venice Cull]

But it's really really cheeky to charge loads for a game that's not really his at all.

Oh, I completely agree, I was merely discussing the legal implications.

There's certainly a moral argument there. For a second I actually thought Codemasters had ripped Stu off.