Re: New Apple II SuperSite Online

[Roy and/or Janet Miller <millers@inetnebr.com>]

**** **** wrote:

> Greg Buchner wrote in message ...
>
> >He wasn't creating a 'new and original' work...he was copying an old
> >game he liked playing...that's whay I meant by same type of game.
>
> Haha. This is good. So duke nukem is a copyright infringement, since id
> wrote doom?

No, but if you wrote Doom IV, then that would be a copy right infringement,
which is what Greg was talking about. Try rereading his first post and you might
see where you missed the point.

> Maybe all new scifi novels infringe on asimov's estate, since he
> is the father of modern science fiction.

Ideas are not copyright able - characters are, "universes" are, so if you write
a Foundation story you could well be sued, or a Star Trek story, but if you
wrote a story about robots, or faster than light star ships you would be safe.

> See? All that crap about "pirates
> should write their own, if they don't want to pay!" was just to lure people
> into a trap. You don't intend for others to write their own, you want them
> to be dependent on a certain clique of copyright holders.

That was a bunch of nonsense John. What Greg said was valid. The creator of
"Choplifter" can create a new version anytime he wishes (assuming he still owns
the rights) for any platform he wishes. But if you do it he could sue you for
every cent you'll make for the rest of your life. AND, if you violate his
copyright by passing around the original "Choplifter" it could be argued in
court that you have hurt any chance of creating a salable newer version. That,
of course, doesn't mean that it would be proven in court, but it could be
argued. There was no trap that Greg wrote, and your contention that he doesn't
want people to write new software is just more nonsense. He isn't asking anyone
to be dependent on any clique of any kind. Again, reread his first post, perhaps
several times. You have read into his statements several erroneous conclusions.
You owe him an apology.

Roy

> No thanks.
>
> John