🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 21 Mar 1995, Bryan Nippers wrote:

> Is it legal to charge a price to use a computer network for this product, or 
> does there have to be some special licencing agreements for this game? 
> Provided of course that there are as many purchased copies of this game as 
> there are computers using them.
> 
> 
  Bryan, no, the software license for the game specifically prohibits 
charging a fee to distribute the game in any manner, and that includes 
charging a fee to play, as far as I'm concerned.

 -Rick Mulligan
  Interplay Productions

In article <Pine.SCO.3.90.950325...@delta1.deltanet.com> Corwin <cor...@deltanet.com> writes:
>From: Corwin <cor...@deltanet.com>
>Subject: Re: To Interplay: multiplayer issues
>Date: Sat, 25 Mar 1995 09:51:56 -800 (PST)

[snip]
> Yep, it's my opinion.  And the distribution terms may be the wrong 
>segment to be looking at, anyway.  As an interesting exercise, let's 
>lay out some parameters and knock it around a bit.  As always, these 
>are my opinions, and I'm no lawyer, I'm here to tell you <grin>. But, 
>as the poet said, "Come, let us reason together:"
>  1.  Shareware doesn't mean freeware.  As with any other license for any 
>product, all rights not specifically granted are reserved for the rights 
>holders, as in the All Rights Reserved notice.
>  2. The rights specifically granted in the shareware license are for solo 
>play, modem-to-modem play and physical LAN play, by virtue of the 
>features and capabilities included in the version.  The intent is, of 
>course, to allow =customers= the choice of play between those three modes.
>  3. If no special code has to be written to allow players to connect 
>thru a server, then there MAY be a case that a provider could include a 
>Descent play area on his server and include the price of play in his fee 
>for access to the service.
>  4. If special code DOES have to be written to allow such play, then the 
>game instantly becomes a derivative product, by virtue of the fact that 
>new code is written and the game is no longer the same product issued 
>with the license.  Creating derivative products without the permission 
>of the rights holder is, of course, disallowed by copyright law.

What about Game Connection, Dwango, etc...  What is the difference between 
that and setting up a local area network that the people have to play?  
Setting up such a thing costs $$$ and would be ridiculous not to charge to 
help cover the costs of initial setup, at least.

>  5.  So, by the reasoning in points 1-4 above, even writing a packet 
>sniffer for your host server to allow Descent (or any other game, for 
>that matter) creates a derivative product.  And charging a fee for a 
>derivative product without the consent of the rights holder is unlawful, 
>as is the mere act of creating a derivative product.


>  6.  Then there's the use of the Descent trademark and copyright for 
>advertising such a service.  Use of those without the permission of the 
>rights or mark holder is clearly unlawful.  That's why theres copyrights 
>and trademarks in the first place <grin>.  So even if such a service to 
>be provided, the service provider couldn't legally advertise it in any 
>manner without the permission of the rights holder.

Again, about the game servers.  They are popping up all over.  Are you going 
to write permission slips for everybody who wants to set up something like 
that?


>  That should be enough to get the discussion started, <g>.  Again, these 
>opinions and views are my own, personally.  I present them here because I 
>love a good discussion.  If you want an official opinion of these issues, 
>you should contact a lawyer.  That's what lawyers are for, or so the 
>rumor goes <mischievious grin>.

>  I'll leave you with a somewhat tortured analogy.  Think of software as 
>cars.  If GM turns out a car, I can buy that car, then rent it out to 
>other people.  I can charge you for the gas in the car, a reasonable 
>mileage rate for wear on the car and more for my insurance on the car, 
>over and above the fee that lets you take physical possession of it and 
>drive it off my lot.

Sure thing.

>  However, I can't sit you down with a map and charge you a toll for 
>every road you're going to use, for the privilege of letting you mingle 
>the car with others on the road.

There IS a thing called tolls on the more expensive highways.  And just think 
of it as a toll for the information highway, for providing a service.

>  See, I TOLD you it was tortured!  <big grin>
> -Rick Mulligan
> My opinions are my own, not Interplay's. They used to be the opinions of 
>my girlfriend, but she stopped being crazy.

Actually, because people are indeed doing what you have disagreed with, I am 
interested in the LEGAL position that Interplay takes on this matter. And you 
are incorrect in saying that to mention the word Descent without the 
permission of the company is illegal.  Just include the (c) symbol after it, 
or (tm) where appropriate.

Look, just to clear it up for all you who dont seem to understand the 
legal issue of me writing the MILK client/server package. 
(specifically INTERPLAY). Here goes:

FLAME ON FLAME ON FLAME ON FLAME ON (don those retardant suits)


	I AM WRITING A GENERIC SERIAL IPX DRIVER WHICH TAKES A 
CONNECTION OF MODEMS OVER GAME CONNECTION BOARDS OR THE INTERNET
AND TURNS IT INTO AN IPX NETWORK. That has NOTHING to do with Descent.
Please don't flatter yourself interplay by thinking you have ANY 
legal grounds WHATSOEVER to sue me for writing a driver to simulate
a serial ipx network. (THINK ABOUT IT, are you going to sue
a company that creates a new ethernet card specifically designed for
fast descent or something? same thing, my driver is providing a 
IPX network which descent uses (be it modem, or ether), nothing else) 
If the individual boards who will market 
themselves with descent support, choose to use the descent logo to 
advertise, then you can take that up with them (there are allready
a bunch who are advertising two player support) but like the other 
poster on this thread said, anyone can use the word descent if they 
put a (c) on it. Sorry interplay but frankly you can shove your money 
hungy attitude up your greedy arses (excuse the french). I am 
personally getting REALLY FUCKING tired of this shit that interplay
is pulling and they are getting a REALLY bad name across the net 
because they are being uncoperative in this respect to not only me 
(BTW: I represent NO company, Im just some guy in college, doing some
coding.) but Sirius software who also represents this cause and 
any other person who suggests a descent multiplayer server. I'm sorry
"guys" but you handled this COMPLETELY the wrong way, and TOTALY 
unprofesionally for a company of your size. There was absolutely 
NO WAY for you guys to stop me from doing this legally, because as I 
said, at a base level my driver has NOTHING to do with parallax's 
wonderfull game. (so like I said dont fucking flatter yourself, I ain;t
writing this driver ONLY for descent, its for other ipx games as well)
In the beggining I asked for your guys help and 
support but I got the run around, and you wouldnt support milk. So
instead I decided to reverse engineer it and figure out descent's ipx
code on my own, which is fine. But now, you are purposelly NOT HELPING
me and not giving out ANY info on descent's ipx code. In a 
obvious attempt to stop me from writing MILK. But guess what guys? 
I have allready done it. MILK runs a two player descent game right now
over modem using descent's ipx menus. And multiplayer will work with
registered when I code for that (soon). Not to mention that sirius's 
driver is also working with 3 players over modem. (still in beta)
So unless you guys want to sue me, and sirius on absolutely NO legal
grounds whatsoever, you're going to have to accept the HUGE chunk 
that milk, and sirius's (and anyone else who writes a driver) is
going to take out of your multiplayer market. You could have used this
to your advantage by supporting these efforts, but instead you got
greedy and wanted to go with your own server,  and cut us out. You 
know what you guys said? "We have not found an option which was 
worth it for us" refering to multiplayer servers. Awwwwwww isnt it 
just toooo bad for poor interplay that we are going to have multiplayer
servers before you even sign a contract with whatever proprietary
shit you guys decide makes you the most money. And you can take this 
as a threat as you want or whatever, really its just a flame, I am 
really pissed at interplay. I can understand how your company wishes
to make the most money off of this, but there was nothing you could
do about these 3rd party drivers and you should have recognized that 
early, instead you got this attitude which made you look greedy. (BTW:
there is over 1 million game connection users, if that inst a target 
market I dont know what is). You are being extremely ignorant in this
issue by not even regarding it as important. Well we will see how 
much money sirius and other servers make off this. And how much you 
loose out.  And you guys go ahead and sue. You aint scaring anyone.

FLAME OFF FLAME OFF FLAME OFF FLAME OFF

Ahhhh. that felt good, I want the guys at parallax to know that this 
is in
no way directed at you. I like you guys, and you're company and your
great game. I am just sorry that you signed up with a company that 
turned out to be like this. Who knew? (Bastards ;)

Yours truly,
Paul Bettner

win...@america.com

Look, just to clear it up for all you who dont seem to understand the 
legal issue of me writing the MILK client/server package. 
(specifically INTERPLAY). Here goes:

FLAME ON FLAME ON FLAME ON FLAME ON (don those retardant suits)


	I AM WRITING A GENERIC SERIAL IPX DRIVER WHICH TAKES A 
CONNECTION OF MODEMS OVER GAME CONNECTION BOARDS OR THE INTERNET
AND TURNS IT INTO AN IPX NETWORK. That has NOTHING to do with Descent.
Please don't flatter yourself interplay by thinking you have ANY 
legal grounds WHATSOEVER to sue me for writing a driver to simulate
a serial ipx network. (THINK ABOUT IT, are you going to sue
a company that creates a new ethernet card specifically designed for
fast descent or something? same thing, my driver is providing a 
IPX network which descent uses (be it modem, or ether), nothing else) 
If the individual boards who will market 
themselves with descent support, choose to use the descent logo to 
advertise, then you can take that up with them (there are allready
a bunch who are advertising two player support) but like the other 
poster on this thread said, anyone can use the word descent if they 
put a (c) on it. Sorry interplay but frankly you can shove your money 
hungy attitude up your greedy arses (excuse the french). I am 
personally getting REALLY FUCKING tired of this shit that interplay
is pulling and they are getting a REALLY bad name across the net 
because they are being uncoperative in this respect to not only me 
(BTW: I represent NO company, Im just some guy in college, doing some
coding.) but Sirius software who also represents this cause and 
any other person who suggests a descent multiplayer server. I'm sorry
"guys" but you handled this COMPLETELY the wrong way, and TOTALY 
unprofesionally for a company of your size. There was absolutely 
NO WAY for you guys to stop me from doing this legally, because as I 
said, at a base level my driver has NOTHING to do with parallax's 
wonderfull game. (so like I said dont fucking flatter yourself, I ain;t
writing this driver ONLY for descent, its for other ipx games as well)
In the beggining I asked for your guys help and 
support but I got the run around, and you wouldnt support milk. So
instead I decided to reverse engineer it and figure out descent's ipx
code on my own, which is fine. But now, you are purposelly NOT HELPING
me and not giving out ANY info on descent's ipx code. In a 
obvious attempt to stop me from writing MILK. But guess what guys? 
I have allready done it. MILK runs a two player descent game right now
over modem using descent's ipx menus. And multiplayer will work with
registered when I code for that (soon). Not to mention that sirius's 
driver is also working with 3 players over modem. (still in beta)
So unless you guys want to sue me, and sirius on absolutely NO legal
grounds whatsoever, you're going to have to accept the HUGE chunk 
that milk, and sirius's (and anyone else who writes a driver) is
going to take out of your multiplayer market. You could have used this
to your advantage by supporting these efforts, but instead you got
greedy and wanted to go with your own server,  and cut us out. You 
know what you guys said? "We have not found an option which was 
worth it for us" refering to multiplayer servers. Awwwwwww isnt it 
just toooo bad for poor interplay that we are going to have multiplayer
servers before you even sign a contract with whatever proprietary
shit you guys decide makes you the most money. And you can take this 
as a threat as you want or whatever, really its just a flame, I am 
really pissed at interplay. I can understand how your company wishes
to make the most money off of this, but there was nothing you could
do about these 3rd party drivers and you should have recognized that 
early, instead you got this attitude which made you look greedy. (BTW:
there is over 1 million game connection users, if that inst a target 
market I dont know what is). You are being extremely ignorant in this
issue by not even regarding it as important. Well we will see how 
much money sirius and other servers make off this. And how much you 
loose out.  And you guys go ahead and sue. You aint scaring anyone.

FLAME OFF FLAME OFF FLAME OFF FLAME OFF

Ahhhh. that felt good, I want the guys at parallax to know that this 
is in
no way directed at you. I like you guys, and you're company and your
great game. I am just sorry that you signed up with a company that 
turned out to be like this. Who knew? (Bastards ;)

Yours truly,
Paul Bettner

win...@america.com