Master of Orion Re-done for Multiplayer

[Nick Garai]

If someone were to take the Master of Orion game (the original) and redo it so that there can be multiplayer mode and also make some changes to it, does anyone know if this is illegal if it wasn't done for profit (the game wasn't resold) and the name was still kept but it was clearly stated that the version is an unofficial version and that that the original trademarks and copyrights belong to the creator(s)?

Anyone here have any suggestions?

Microrprose has since vanished...

 

[vmxa]

I think Atrai owns the rights or whatever company now owns Atari. What the law is depends on the country.

The real issue in the US would be, if the owner wanted to come after you or not. I would expect they would do like Alan Klien did with many of the tiles (music) he controlled.

They sent a cease and desist notice to any seller. If you did not they would sue. Did not come to that as the amount was to small. Since this is not being sold, I am not sure.

If it was dispensed via the internet for free, they probably would send a notice, IF they found out.

The thing is layers cost money and they do not want to go to court, if you have little for them to get.

 

[vmxa]

Oh, I can tell you that you will never hear back if you try to get permission as I knew two different people that claim to have written for the purpose of remaking Moo1.

Ray had a fair amount done, but has not been heard from in some time. He had posted some working game to some degree and it was even done on Atari's website. No one even posted any thing saying to stop.

 

[Aabraxan]

Just as an aside, the lawyers do indeed cost money, but the prevailing party can typically ask the other side to pay its attorneys' fees. That request won't always be granted, but the threat is always there. In a case like this, I'd be much more worried about paying the attorneys' fees than I would about any alleged lost profits that Atari (or whoever owns the rights) might claim. As to the legality, I don't know. You might be able to make a fair use argument. How long to copyrights last & can they be renewed?

 

[vmxa]

I hear very little in the way of getting expense for trials, but even so it would not matter. The party will not have enough to cover the car fare. It is not like they will be dealing with a corporation with money or insurance. These are home grown effort. Mostly young people.

 

[Aabraxan]

I hear very little in the way of getting expense for trials, but even so it would not matter. The party will not have enough to cover the car fare. It is not like they will be dealing with a corporation with money or insurance. These are home grown effort. Mostly young people.

I don't work in a field where copyright comes up very often, so I can't speak as to how often fees & costs are actually awarded in that arena. I would hazard a guess that they are always requested, though. Just out of curiosity, I looked it up and there is a federal statute specifically authorizing the award of attorneys' fees to a prevailing party in an action for copyright infringement.

Also, what a losing defendant has today is not the whole issue. Once the prevailing party gets that judgment, there are lots of ugly things that they can do to satisfy it, like garnish wages, get a lien on their house or other real property, or possibly have the sheriff execute on (take) & sell their personal property at auction. So even if they don't have money or insurance now, a judgment against them can be very troublesome for their future. And having an unsatisfied judgment against them won't help matters, either.

That said, I'd love to see MOO1 remade. It's a highly-spoken-of game that I missed out on. I would just hate to see anyone go down this road without some idea of the dangers they might face. Now, as to whether the copyright owners might be inclined to actually pursue a claim against the developers, . . . That's another question and one that I can't answer. I simply don't know enough about the "computer game copyright landscape" to know.

 

[barseer]

Heh, what coincidence. Just wanted inform DJ that there is actually one Moo1 player on the world who is really interested in Moo1mp (DJ thought there is nobody), then he contacted me this morning that he found parts of his Moo1 project. Invited him to post news on the moo2 blog: http://masteroforion2.blogspot.com

 

[vmxa]

The point and it is the only relevant point, is that no corporation is going to spend lots of money to sue joe blow with no assest, if they can possibly avoid it.

They will file a cease and desist and threaten with legal notices and hope that does it. Otherwise it will be a lose of money. It is not even clear that they can win in the case of Moo1 as it has been available for downloading for years. This basicaly constitutes a lose of copyright. I am not saying they would lose, but it is not a givn they would win.

Anyway enough said by me on this issue. I doubt it will ever comeup. I have seen two effort that had a lot done be abandoned. It is a lot of work for one person.

 

[Aabraxan]

I would agree that a corp is unlikely to sue joe blow with no assets, particularly in a case where the outcome may be questionable. I would also agree that the scenario you've posted in the most likely one.

But I would disagree as to whether that's the only relevant point. The RIAA is going after plenty of people without regard to their assets. (No, it's not over computer programs, but it is over copyrighted intellectual property). And a judgment against a joe blow with no assets could cripple him financially, even if the company never recoups all of its fees.

A lot of factors have to come together to recoup the attorneys' fees that we've discussed, but if the corp can reclaim them, they're only out the money for a short while. If they win, it was an investment, not an expenditure.

I also don't know how the release of MOO2 and MOO3 would affect their copyrights. While MOO1 has been on the web for a while, they have been using the name "Master of Orion," and many of the same concepts & names.

 

[Panjandrum]

If your mod requires a version of the original game to be installed, and youre not making any money from it, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Youre legally allowed to modify software you own, provided you dont try to claim it as original work or try to sell it on.

 

[Murky]

If your mod requires a version of the original game to be installed, and youre not making any money from it, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. Youre legally allowed to modify software you own, provided you dont try to claim it as original work or try to sell it on.

What about if you just wrote a whole new program that used the original game's data?

 

[Horizon]

What about if you just wrote a whole new program that used the original game's data?

The developers of Freecraft did just that, they created a RTS engine for which you -could- use the Warcraft2 original graphics files

-could- because it was not forced, as Freecraft had their own set of graphics, it was just optional to use Warcraft 2 content to get them working instead of the default Freecraft graphics.

But they got attacked by Blizzard anyways and as the Freecraft author was annoyed by that, Freecraft was then abandonned.

Fortunately, not all companies are like Blizzard.

 

[vmxa]

They had to do that to protect their copyrights, especially as they knew they were going to make a sequel.

 

[barseer]

DJ asked me for an alternative to the usual Sullivan DL which is the 1.31 version. He said that his MOO1 hotseat crack should work with some early 1.3 version (or mebbe even earlier?). Can anyone help?

He has summarized the status quo on his own blog:

http://old-games-modding.blogspot.com/

 

[vmxa]

AFAIK Moo1 is only 1.3, not 1.31. I use to have the original floppies that were 1.2 iirc, but I have no idea where you could find an older version. Maybe Ebay.

 

[barseer]

Ah yes. I read somewhere 1.31 on a MOO1 site....but now I see that it was the version of that guide. Well, I hope DJ lurks here in the next days....confusing.