tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Sun Sep 14 15:52:49 1997

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: Game analogy for tlhIngan Hol



ja' Qov:
>Consider a copyrightable game.  I buy a Monopoly set.  I buy a
>Microsoft Golf disk.  I buy a Klingon Dictionary.  Now
>what commercial activities can I legally use them for?

pIm ghu'mey.  Dochna' 'oH "Monopoly" 'aH'e'.
pab'e' mu'tay'e' je neH ngaS Hol, 'ej 'oghqu'meH qechmey lulo'lu'.

A Monopoly set is a "thing".  One merely manipulates it in order to
play a game; one doesn't create things based on it.  But a language
is a collection of words which represent concepts and a set of rules
for putting those words together to express ideas.  By its nature,
a language is used to create things based on instances of its parts.

>Can I charge people money to teach them how to play?
>Now I've never seen Monopoly lessons advertised, but would
>Milton-Bradley (or whoever makes Monopoly) sue you if you offered
>them? You could charge anyone willing to pay to come over to your
>house and play Monopoly.

bIQujchugh neH, qay'be'.

As long as you just played with the existing pieces, nobody would
have a basis under copyright law for complaint.

>Can I rewrite the rules in an easy to understand format
>with lots of examples and tips for winning strategies and sell that?

Hat 'e' vIHon jIH.

I think this might be an interesting topic for debate, but not here
on the tlhIngan-Hol list.  I tend to believe that the rules themselves
are not copyrightable; like the plot of a story, only the expression
of the rules in particular words should be protected.

>People certainly do that for computer programs and I've never heard
>of Microsoft suing the Dummies book people for Microsoft Golf for
>Dummies.  But a for profit tlhIngan Hol Step-by-Step book would get
>you sued so hard by Paramount it's laughable to think of it.

bepchugh "Viacom" ghaytan QaplI' 'ach rInpa' bov muj rIntaH.

I would *love* to see this happen.  Based on precedent in computer
macro languages, I think Viacom would lose...eventually. :-(

>I certainly may not recopy the game and sell it myself.

Nor can you incorporate pieces of the game into something else and
make multiple copies of it for sale.  Unfortunately, that's exactly
how *languages* work.  I can see Viacom's point.  I don't happen to
*agree* with it, though; I don't believe that a language should be
considered "intellectual property".

But I neither make the rules nor legally interpret them, and I don't
have the resources to challenge them at the moment.

-- ghunchu'wI'




Back to archive top level