Intellectual property/rights for existing games ported to SL?

Deleted. This is pointless, people interpret a detail their own way without asking what was actually meant, get stuck in semantics, ignore the overall point, and sidetrack the entire conversation. I should have known better.

Well done Ardith.

False.

Oh really. You do not get IP for creations in SL?

False.

Perhaps you would like to elaborate. Simply saying "no" in a hypothetical argument is pointless. You are also focusing on one detail without pointing out how it can change the overall point.

From law.com...

"The game's developer, San Francisco-based Linden Lab, rocked last year's conference by granting players intellectual property rights to their virtual creations."

I never said LL explicitly went up to the developer and said, "because you created Chess in SL, you now have the IP to it". But they offer IP protection for virtual creations. That's only part of the point though. The fact is, Chess now exists in SL, it is the IP of somebody else, and the SL dev is making money doing it, or at least has the means to do so, and has never acknowledged the original IP owner in any way.

It is perfectly reasonable to say that this developer would read the fact that SL creators are granted IP and be alarmed.

Reread the post. Try to understand my overall argument and not just be reactionary to the first thing you suspect you can naysay.

Good job on being first poster though I know that's really important to some people.

I think Ardith is right. There are two sides to being guaranteed IP rights. You are also guaranteed the liability if you're violating someone else's IP. LL wouldn't take the fall on your behalf.

When it comes to games (aside from trademarked names and such) I'm not sure what the norm is. You see knock-off versions of popular games everywhere. How many bejeweled clones are on the net? I don't have an answer to your main question.

Hmm? Isn't all this already covered by existing Patent/Trademark/Copyright laws?

Good god, I hate the ficticious term "Intellectual Property".

So then it would seem to imply that any implementation of Chess (assuming the points in the OP) would need to be removed from SL, and the owner of the IP entitled to compensation?

There is nothing at all fictitious about IP.

And that's sort of my point Chip. Where's the line?

Sorry. I thought I'd spare you the long-winded response, since it's already been posted a dozen times before in a dozen different incarnations of this same thread.

I will clarify. You've reached a wrong conclusion based on a flawed understanding of LL policy. LL's policy is not to guarantee that your creation is your own IP, as that is neither their capacity nor their right. All LL was declaring is that they do not make any claim over IP created in game. Furthermore, they explicitly state that they are not responsible for infringements of IP by users of SL. To this end, they have established a DMCA complaint resolution process to handle claims of IP infringement.

LL has absolutely no legal responsibility for the creation of infringing material.

Also, my apologies for using the egregious misnomer IP. It's just the most convenient term available to describe the whole boat of copyright, trademark, trade secrets, etc.

The very concept of IP is a fiction created by man to differentiate the material property of the world, which can not be duplicated and is easily protected, and the property of the mind, which is impossible to protect and which proliferates readily. Material property has existed since the genesis of the universe. Intellectual property has been in existence for no more than half a century.

The only entity with standing to bring a DMCA complaint against those dread pirates who've duplicated Chess is the firm with the "IP" right to Chess. If you want to see it gone, start pestering that company to file a complaint.

"You've reached a wrong conclusion"

Please show me where I reached any conclusions at all.

Oh nevermind this is just annoying. Next reponder please.

Ouch, this is a touchy one.

LL has also clearly said that they will remove copyrighted material, characters, textures, etc from the servers upon notification of said infringement by the copyright holder. HOPEFULLY, they will have onstaff legal types who will take the time to both verify that the notifyer is really the copyright holder, and that the ingame material is truly infringing. Small company that they are, I think that LL would err on the side of caution, inotherwords, Cover Your Own Asset Server. Even if they won a legal battle, they don't have limitless resources to fight back multiple claimants to various copyrighted/trademarked material in-game.

Now, for a game?

I'd advise making the game clearly distinguishable enough from its "namesake" to be able to put forth an arguable defense of original work. I'd include making the name different; so "Warcraft in Second Life" is probably not a good name idea.

The problem is compounded by the nature of the game itself. If you scripted a Chess (TM) board to play like the game, is that the same as the boardgame, which is in no way code-based or interactive? Software that mimics boardgame play; hmmm, probably it's protected under Copyright or Tradmark, if it uses the same rules for play.

Another factor to consider is whether the game company who owns the copyrights, even if aware of the infringement, might prefer to let it go and benefit from publicity, or invite the developer out to their HQ offices for a "congratulations", pat-on-the-back, good-PR type of thing, to show how much they foster creativity and development among their community members. Perhaps it might be worth asking the company themselves for "permission" to use their game rules; maybe LL even has "test" accounts that they'd be willing to let one of their people log in with, to meet you in-world so you can show them what your idea is. There's a game that I'd like to script for SL, it's a by a fairly small upstart company on the east coast, and I have a feeling that if I asked them, they'd probably let me do it with their blessings, as a sort of guerrilla marketing. I get to make a copyrighted game, and get scripting experience, (cool), and respect their copyright in the process (cool)

Thank you for actually reading the post and getting the point Jinx, though I won't bring it up on the boards again.

No problem. If you've got any future problems, feel free to come back and read my very informative and on topic post again.

Lol yeah right. Your posts sucked.

Later for this thread go ahead do what you want with it, I've requested the Lindens delete it.

Actually, Intellectual Property has never existed. It's a very recent term invented by various people who are trying to create the impression in the public mind that ideas can be 'owned'. It has no legal definition whatsoever, because ideas are not property.

The way things are going, of course, eventually it will have a legal definition, and ideas will be property. That day is going to suck.

It is touchy ground for Linden Labs, I agree. Not because they're in any way responsible for one of their players infringing someone else's patent/copyright, but rather the growing trend for such rights-holders to attack so-called 'enabling technologies', as opposed to the infringers themselves. I'd hate to see a copyright-police squad having to be formed in-game to police this stuff.

Intellectual property is a relatively modern word (mid-1800s) for a long-standing view that information should be controlled. Even as early as the 1600s, people were treating information as property. As for your assertion that intellectual property is a term that is not legally recognized, I suggest you go back and check out the case law. I no longer have access to Westlaw, so I can't cite the relevant case. However, a federal court ruled in the 19th century that "intellectual property" deserves the same protection as the other products of man's labor.

That's not to say that I agree with that. Personally, I think that content producers currently enjoy way too much legal protection, and that they use their legal protection to abuse consumers in egregious ways. I merely disagree with your assessment that we currently live in times where ideas are not treated as property. Those golden days are long gone.

My apologies if my pedantry is taken the wrong way, Cross.