Cease and desist what exactly? They aren't distributing anything other than a video. As a news item about re-purposing voting machines, fair use seems to be on their side concerning Pac-Man imagery appearing in the video.
If Namco doesn't like it they'll send the letter anyways. If if you're legally ok, is it worth hiring a lawyer to go to court and fight it? Namco (like most large companies) keeps one on staff, so sending him to court is just them using a paid for asset.
The sad truth is that in today's society, if a corporation says to stop doing something, it's usually smart to stop it. You can't afford to prove your innocence.
And nobody does anything about it. What a fucked up society.
Really? And what would you do about it? Make it illegal for a company to sue someone who is infringing on their copyrights or trademarks? Make bootleg products legal?
Why would any company invest in hiring people and spending money to develop something if they have no recourse when someone can simply set up to sell bootlegs of the finished work with no consequences?
Sure, it's fun to hate lawyers. Until it's you being ripped off.
Since a copyright lawyer SHOULD know copyright law, just make a pattern of errors in that regard be grounds for disbarment due to incompetence. If the lawyer doing it claims not to be a copyright lawyer, make it for malpractice since after the first time he should have realized he didn't know enough to practice in that area.
To *knowingly* assert a copyright violation where none exists. Often they may think there is one, and only find out later that there isn't.
IANAL, but if they haven't done due diligence, they shouldn't be willing to go to court over it, nor send threatening letters / C&D, etc.
If there is a copyright violation, and if the people have a lawyer on staff or whatever, they can afford to wait a week or two to confirm it, or do whatever else it takes to find out. Copyright violation isn't murder; there is no dangerous situation if you don't handle it immediately. The stolen copyright is not going to decide it likes the second party better and le
Which a judge isn't likely to apply in your favor if you are working from a ROM that you downloaded from the Internet. As I understand 117, in order for a MAME ROM to be considered lawfully made, you have to desolder the ROM ICs from the authentic PCB and then dump each of them with an EPROM programmer. It's easier for Sega Genesis and Super NES software, for which a cartridge dumper [retrode.org] exists.
On a Pac-Man PCB the ROMs are socketed so getting dumps is not at all difficult, especially for people capable of performing this hack. Since there is no evidence that the ROMs were downloaded and the burden of proof rests with Namco, I don't see a judge even allowing the case to proceed.
A civil case is decided on a preponderance of evidence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the burden of proof is split between the two parties. Once Namco can trivially prove that the game was copied and that infringing copies are widespread, it is up to the hackers to prove that this particular copy does not infringe by claiming affirmative defenses such as section 117.
It's not that cut and dry and you contradict yourself when you say the hackers have to prove anything. I think that was just a slip of the keyboard. Even in civil cases, the burden of persuasion usually rests with the plaintiff. However, "fair use" is an affirmative defense so the burden could shift to the defendant. If it did, the hackers have the original ROMs, are not redistributing copies of them, are not making "archival" copies (hardware ROMs are specifically not covered by section 117.a.2), and are p
Even in civil cases, the burden of persuasion usually rests with the plaintiff.
Assume the plaintiff has persuaded the judge that the audiovisual work embodied in the game was reproduced, that it was performed publicly, and that the reproduction and performance were not authorized by the plaintiff. As I understand it, it becomes the defendant's turn to persuade the judge that the reproduction and performance are permissible despite not having been authorized by the plaintiff. In this case, Halderman and Feldman admit that the work was performed publicly at the USENIX Security conferenc
The case you cite bares little resemblance to what we a talking about, and the rest is spurious at best. You say public performance, I say reasonable expectation of educational fair use exemption at a private conference. I also really doubt filing for dilution of trademark will get them anywhere. The hackers can easily show non-commercial, non-competing, non-confusing, nominative fair use.
The hackers can easily show non-commercial, non-competing, non-confusing, nominative fair use.
You've made what appears to be a good case for the defense. But how would they come up with the money to pay a lawyer to make such a case before a judge?
It's too expensive to defend oneself against unjustified lawsuits.
Then don't. The only winning move is not to play. Honestly, we get so riled up around here about fighting nuisance lawsuits that we forget that the best strategy is to just ignore them, let the other side get a hojillion dollar default judgement, wait for them to pass it on to a debt collection agency, then tell them that the "debt" is under dispute with the creditor. That's the last you'll ever hear about it.
Namco owns a copyright on the physical appearance of the character Pac-Man. Namco and its then U.S. console partner Atari successfully sued a cloner in 1982 for copyright infringement (Atari v. Philips [wikipedia.org]). So if the player character of Vote Eater looks too much like a sphere with a lune [wikipedia.org] for a mouth, and if the chasing characters look too much like Bloo from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends without a valid parodic reason [deviantart.com], Namco would still have enough of a case to make the author of Vote Eater spend beauc
What would Namco say? (Score:3, Interesting)
Expect a cease and desist like this one [slashdot.org] in 3, 2, 1...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Cease and desist what exactly? They aren't distributing anything other than a video. As a news item about re-purposing voting machines, fair use seems to be on their side concerning Pac-Man imagery appearing in the video.
Re:What would Namco say? (Score:5, Insightful)
If Namco doesn't like it they'll send the letter anyways. If if you're legally ok, is it worth hiring a lawyer to go to court and fight it? Namco (like most large companies) keeps one on staff, so sending him to court is just them using a paid for asset.
The sad truth is that in today's society, if a corporation says to stop doing something, it's usually smart to stop it. You can't afford to prove your innocence.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? And what would you do about it? Make it illegal for a company to sue someone who is infringing on their copyrights or trademarks? Make bootleg products legal?
Why would any company invest in hiring people and spending money to develop something if they have no recourse when someone can simply set up to sell bootlegs of the finished work with no consequences?
Sure, it's fun to hate lawyers. Until it's you being ripped off.
Re:What would Namco say? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd make it a criminal offense to assert copyright violation where none exists.
Re: (Score:2)
To *knowingly* assert a copyright violation where none exists. Often they may think there is one, and only find out later that there isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
Since a copyright lawyer SHOULD know copyright law, just make a pattern of errors in that regard be grounds for disbarment due to incompetence. If the lawyer doing it claims not to be a copyright lawyer, make it for malpractice since after the first time he should have realized he didn't know enough to practice in that area.
Re: (Score:2)
To *knowingly* assert a copyright violation where none exists. Often they may think there is one, and only find out later that there isn't.
IANAL, but if they haven't done due diligence, they shouldn't be willing to go to court over it, nor send threatening letters / C&D, etc.
If there is a copyright violation, and if the people have a lawyer on staff or whatever, they can afford to wait a week or two to confirm it, or do whatever else it takes to find out. Copyright violation isn't murder; there is no dangerous situation if you don't handle it immediately. The stolen copyright is not going to decide it likes the second party better and le
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Section 117 of US copyright law allows for this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html [cornell.edu]
Unfortunately, I have to agree with a sibling post. It's too expensive to defend oneself against unjustified lawsuits.
Difficulty of staying 117 compliant (Score:2)
Section 117 of US copyright law allows for this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/117.html [cornell.edu]
Which a judge isn't likely to apply in your favor if you are working from a ROM that you downloaded from the Internet. As I understand 117, in order for a MAME ROM to be considered lawfully made, you have to desolder the ROM ICs from the authentic PCB and then dump each of them with an EPROM programmer. It's easier for Sega Genesis and Super NES software, for which a cartridge dumper [retrode.org] exists.
Re: (Score:2)
On a Pac-Man PCB the ROMs are socketed so getting dumps is not at all difficult, especially for people capable of performing this hack. Since there is no evidence that the ROMs were downloaded and the burden of proof rests with Namco, I don't see a judge even allowing the case to proceed.
Split burden of proof (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that cut and dry and you contradict yourself when you say the hackers have to prove anything. I think that was just a slip of the keyboard. Even in civil cases, the burden of persuasion usually rests with the plaintiff. However, "fair use" is an affirmative defense so the burden could shift to the defendant. If it did, the hackers have the original ROMs, are not redistributing copies of them, are not making "archival" copies (hardware ROMs are specifically not covered by section 117.a.2), and are p
Re: (Score:2)
Even in civil cases, the burden of persuasion usually rests with the plaintiff.
Assume the plaintiff has persuaded the judge that the audiovisual work embodied in the game was reproduced, that it was performed publicly, and that the reproduction and performance were not authorized by the plaintiff. As I understand it, it becomes the defendant's turn to persuade the judge that the reproduction and performance are permissible despite not having been authorized by the plaintiff. In this case, Halderman and Feldman admit that the work was performed publicly at the USENIX Security conferenc
Re: (Score:2)
The case you cite bares little resemblance to what we a talking about, and the rest is spurious at best. You say public performance, I say reasonable expectation of educational fair use exemption at a private conference. I also really doubt filing for dilution of trademark will get them anywhere. The hackers can easily show non-commercial, non-competing, non-confusing, nominative fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
The hackers can easily show non-commercial, non-competing, non-confusing, nominative fair use.
You've made what appears to be a good case for the defense. But how would they come up with the money to pay a lawyer to make such a case before a judge?
Re: (Score:2)
At the risk of going in circles, see GGGGGGGP post. Else, hope for a pro bono EFF lawyer to take pity.
Re: (Score:2)
Then don't. The only winning move is not to play. Honestly, we get so riled up around here about fighting nuisance lawsuits that we forget that the best strategy is to just ignore them, let the other side get a hojillion dollar default judgement, wait for them to pass it on to a debt collection agency, then tell them that the "debt" is under dispute with the creditor. That's the last you'll ever hear about it.
Ultimately, it's cheaper to c
just make a clone and call it vote eater! (Score:2)
just make a clone and call it vote eater!
Atari v. Philips (Score:2)
just make a clone
Namco owns a copyright on the physical appearance of the character Pac-Man. Namco and its then U.S. console partner Atari successfully sued a cloner in 1982 for copyright infringement ( Atari v. Philips [wikipedia.org]). So if the player character of Vote Eater looks too much like a sphere with a lune [wikipedia.org] for a mouth, and if the chasing characters look too much like Bloo from Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends without a valid parodic reason [deviantart.com], Namco would still have enough of a case to make the author of Vote Eater spend beauc
Re: (Score:2)
Should have made it the head of Al Gore, eating chads, being chased by lawyers draped in bedsheets. Pac-Chad.