Apparently, the Tetris Company is a copyright troll / vexatious litigant.
According to Tetris Holdings LLC v Xio Interactive, the 10x20 play area and block shapes are somehow copyrighted, despite these being argued as public domain previously.
Therefore all Tetris clones are somehow illegal. Absolutely insane.
Even crazier is Tetris Company somehow owns a copyright on the Russian folk song that was used for the original game in the video game market. Somehow, using that old, public domain song in any video game is infringing on Tetris Holdings copyright. How is that legal? Why is such unilateral control of public domain works allowed?
The answer to both is variations on public domain works can be protected by trademark and copyright. Type A isn’t Korobeiniki, it’s a new work. It’s the same reason why Disney’s Snow White is protected by copyright (for a little while longer, anyway), but the original work it is based on is not.
You want this kind of protection. Otherwise works would effectively be held by the original artists in perpetuity, as a lack of protection even after they enter the public domain chills any investment in variation on those works that might lead to significant cultural impact.
I encourage you to read up on the basics and the reasons why these laws exist in the first place. This sort of thing is how we end up with misinformation like “piracy is legal if you own the original game” and “it’s 100% legal to jailbreak a video game console.”
I thought that was exactly how copyright works. It is infeasible to keep track of every infringement, so a policy like that is unenforceable.
That’s why DMCA takedowns exist, even automated after an Ai recognizes a song in example. As this has some bad side effects in an automated process or even persons and companies misusing it either willingly or by not understanding, it will remain a problem. DMCA exists because it is unfeasable to keep track of every infringement, and an instant action is taken just in case it is true.
A problem with DMCA is that it runs opposite of the rest of the legal system. DMCA takedowns operate on a guilty until proven innocent priniciple. This might be manageable if there were consequences for abusing the takedown system.
I agree with you 100%. I just brought it up, because it proves that there needs to be a solution to the problem and this is an attempt to solve the issue (at least somewhat). I am not an advocate for DMCA system, because it is misused easily.
I thought that was exactly how copyright works. It is infeasible to keep track of every infringement, so a policy like that is unenforceable.
Also its not out of the question that those myriad of tetris clones each secured some sort of agreement with the tetris company.
Apparently, the Tetris Company is a copyright troll / vexatious litigant.
According to Tetris Holdings LLC v Xio Interactive, the 10x20 play area and block shapes are somehow copyrighted, despite these being argued as public domain previously.
Therefore all Tetris clones are somehow illegal. Absolutely insane.
Even crazier is Tetris Company somehow owns a copyright on the Russian folk song that was used for the original game in the video game market. Somehow, using that old, public domain song in any video game is infringing on Tetris Holdings copyright. How is that legal? Why is such unilateral control of public domain works allowed?
Source
The answer to both is variations on public domain works can be protected by trademark and copyright. Type A isn’t Korobeiniki, it’s a new work. It’s the same reason why Disney’s Snow White is protected by copyright (for a little while longer, anyway), but the original work it is based on is not.
You want this kind of protection. Otherwise works would effectively be held by the original artists in perpetuity, as a lack of protection even after they enter the public domain chills any investment in variation on those works that might lead to significant cultural impact.
I encourage you to read up on the basics and the reasons why these laws exist in the first place. This sort of thing is how we end up with misinformation like “piracy is legal if you own the original game” and “it’s 100% legal to jailbreak a video game console.”
That’s why DMCA takedowns exist, even automated after an Ai recognizes a song in example. As this has some bad side effects in an automated process or even persons and companies misusing it either willingly or by not understanding, it will remain a problem. DMCA exists because it is unfeasable to keep track of every infringement, and an instant action is taken just in case it is true.
A problem with DMCA is that it runs opposite of the rest of the legal system. DMCA takedowns operate on a guilty until proven innocent priniciple. This might be manageable if there were consequences for abusing the takedown system.
I agree with you 100%. I just brought it up, because it proves that there needs to be a solution to the problem and this is an attempt to solve the issue (at least somewhat). I am not an advocate for DMCA system, because it is misused easily.