Octopus Overlords

Defiant wrote:Glenn Beck, of all people, writes something worth reading

(Not that I don't have issues with Facebook, but...)

RunningMn9 wrote:I could never get back on board, and in the meantime my social liberalism took center stage over my fiscal conservatism (since neither party seems to understand what that means anymore).

Zarathud wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:I could never get back on board, and in the meantime my social liberalism took center stage over my fiscal conservatism (since neither party seems to understand what that means anymore).

The funny thing is that the Bernie Bros hate Hillary on economic issues because she's a pro-business fiscal conservative Democrat. She is likely the closest candidate you could find in 2916.

But that may not make you feel better....

RunningMn9 wrote:I don't equate "pro business" with "fiscal conservative", and I don't believe she's a fiscal conservative because I don't believe that she believes in anything or has any principles. She believes whatever she thinks she needs to believe in order to get elected.

RunningMn9 wrote:I don't equate "pro business" with "fiscal conservative",

DaVinci sued Ziko for copyright infringement, asserting that LOTK copied protected features of Bang! Copyright law protects original expression, but does not protect ideas or functional elements such as procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation. Game mechanics and rules are not entitled to copyright protection, but expressive elements may be copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards, and graphical works, as well as elements of the characters – if they are sufficiently developed. Copyright does not protect “stock” characters.

The court determined that Ziko’s game did not infringe any of the protectable elements of Bang! The game play and interactions of the roles and characters in Bang! are not sufficiently detailed or developed to be protectable expressive content, but instead are unprotectable game mechanics and rules.

Defiant wrote:Copyright Law Does Not Protect Structure and Game Play of Card Game

DaVinci sued Ziko for copyright infringement, asserting that LOTK copied protected features of Bang! Copyright law protects original expression, but does not protect ideas or functional elements such as procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation. Game mechanics and rules are not entitled to copyright protection, but expressive elements may be copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards, and graphical works, as well as elements of the characters – if they are sufficiently developed. Copyright does not protect “stock” characters.

The court determined that Ziko’s game did not infringe any of the protectable elements of Bang! The game play and interactions of the roles and characters in Bang! are not sufficiently detailed or developed to be protectable expressive content, but instead are unprotectable game mechanics and rules.

While I don't think game mechanics should be protected, being able to copy an entire game and just change the names/artwork/assets around seems sketchy to me.

noxiousdog wrote:

Defiant wrote:Copyright Law Does Not Protect Structure and Game Play of Card Game

DaVinci sued Ziko for copyright infringement, asserting that LOTK copied protected features of Bang! Copyright law protects original expression, but does not protect ideas or functional elements such as procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation. Game mechanics and rules are not entitled to copyright protection, but expressive elements may be copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards, and graphical works, as well as elements of the characters – if they are sufficiently developed. Copyright does not protect “stock” characters.

The court determined that Ziko’s game did not infringe any of the protectable elements of Bang! The game play and interactions of the roles and characters in Bang! are not sufficiently detailed or developed to be protectable expressive content, but instead are unprotectable game mechanics and rules.

While I don't think game mechanics should be protected, being able to copy an entire game and just change the names/artwork/assets around seems sketchy to me.

I think the alternative is someone copyrighting baseball or billiards.

Isgrimnur wrote:You mean like this?

gbasden wrote:I dunno... There are a *lot* of game mechanics we take for granted. Could some troll get a patent for rolling dice to determine hits or misses? What about the idea of a randomized tile based gameboard? I don't like the idea of being able to copy a game from the ground up, but I'd hate to see board gaming drown in patent lawsuits either.

Isgrimnur wrote:Won't someone think of the children?

Mary Lou Bruner is poised to be the next member of the Texas State Board of Education, having fallen just short of the 50 percent needed to secure the seat this past Tuesday.

A Texas education board candidate who claimed that President Barack Obama was a gay prostitute and believes dinosaurs walked the Earth with humans lost her primary runoff Tuesday night just two months after nearly clinching victory outright.

Mary Lou Bruner, a 69-year-old former schoolteacher, had been the front-runner for a seat on the powerful Texas State Board of Education that sets curriculum and textbook standards for more than 5 million schoolchildren. But her lead unraveled as old Facebook posts in which she peddled conspiracy theories and fringe political screeds drew greater attention and ridicule. Voters instead picked Keven Ellis, a local school board president who ran a mainstream campaign, for the Republican nomination.

Ellis is now an automatic favorite to win in November in the staunchly conservative East Texas district. The Democratic nominee is a professor at Stephen F. Austin University.

Among Bruner's since-deleted posts was that Democrats killed John F. Kennedy, that climate change is a hoax concocted by Karl Marx, and that Obama's health care overhaul was an orchestrated plot to wipe 200 million people from the U.S. population. She also wrote that the flood from the biblical story of Noah's Ark is what destroyed the dinosaurs - and not a meteor as "concocted" by atheists. Some of the posts were several years old. They were captured by the Texas Freedom Network, left-leaning watchdog of the state education board.

Isgrimnur wrote:There is hope yet for humanity. Or at least East Texas.

Isgrimnur wrote:So someone that showed signs of schizophrenia was together enough to not only run for the party nomination for a state school board seat, but savvy enough to get to a runoff election. That's one heck of a low bar the party is setting.

Israel Police recommended indicting Sara Netanyahu, wife of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, concerning irregularities in the running of the prime minister's households, Haaretz has learned.

Police have discovered evidentiary basis against Netanyahu in three separate affairs – and not, as could be understood from the police's Sunday statement on the matter, in one affair.

Recommended charges include aggravated fraudulent receipt on three separate counts. In one case, there's a recommendation to indict Netanyahu for ordering food and private chefs for family events at the expense of the prime minister's residence. It is suspected that private family entertainment was funded by public funds.

In another case, there's a recommendation to indict the prime minister's wife in relation to the employment of a caregiver for her father. The investigation revealed that Netanyahu paid the expenses for a live-in caregiver for her father from the budget of the prime minister's residence.

In the third case – the affair surrounding the prime minister's residences – evidentiary basis was found to indict three people: Sara Netanyahu, Ezra Saidoff, the deputy director general of the Prime Minister's Office and Avi Fahima, a former Likud Central Committee member who has been close to the prime minister for years and often did work at the Caesarea residence in the years when Netanyahu was out of office.

Moliere wrote:Rand Paul Introduces Amendment to End Draft

msduncan wrote:

Moliere wrote:Rand Paul Introduces Amendment to End Draft

He was/is my preferred candidate. Unfortunately he never had a chance for some reason. The media labels him loony which doesn't help.

msduncan wrote:

Moliere wrote:Rand Paul Introduces Amendment to End Draft

He was/is my preferred candidate. Unfortunately he never had a chance for some reason. The media labels him loony which doesn't help.

El Guapo wrote:

msduncan wrote:

Moliere wrote:Rand Paul Introduces Amendment to End Draft

He was/is my preferred candidate. Unfortunately he never had a chance for some reason. The media labels him loony which doesn't help.

By many accounts his campaign was a disorganized mess.

hepcat wrote:Ann Coulter believes that the proper term for Asian Americans (specifically those of Chinese origin) is "Mandarins", and not actually...you know...Asian Americans...or even Chinese Americans.

hepcat wrote:I'm glad the subject of my post wasn't African Americans or Jewish people. I shudder to think of the photo you have on deck for that occurrence.

Try to follow along. In Texas, it's legal to have sex with somebody as young as 17 years old. But it's considered child pornography to have nude pictures of somebody under 18, even if he or she is 17.

Max Peck wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Defiant wrote:Copyright Law Does Not Protect Structure and Game Play of Card Game

DaVinci sued Ziko for copyright infringement, asserting that LOTK copied protected features of Bang! Copyright law protects original expression, but does not protect ideas or functional elements such as procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation. Game mechanics and rules are not entitled to copyright protection, but expressive elements may be copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards, and graphical works, as well as elements of the characters – if they are sufficiently developed. Copyright does not protect “stock” characters.

The court determined that Ziko’s game did not infringe any of the protectable elements of Bang! The game play and interactions of the roles and characters in Bang! are not sufficiently detailed or developed to be protectable expressive content, but instead are unprotectable game mechanics and rules.

While I don't think game mechanics should be protected, being able to copy an entire game and just change the names/artwork/assets around seems sketchy to me.

I think the alternative is someone copyrighting baseball or billiards.

What if a game designer filed a patent for the game mechanics, as well as a copyright?

Defiant wrote:

Max Peck wrote:

noxiousdog wrote:

Defiant wrote:Copyright Law Does Not Protect Structure and Game Play of Card Game

DaVinci sued Ziko for copyright infringement, asserting that LOTK copied protected features of Bang! Copyright law protects original expression, but does not protect ideas or functional elements such as procedures, processes, systems, or methods of operation. Game mechanics and rules are not entitled to copyright protection, but expressive elements may be copyrightable, including game labels, design of game boards, playing cards, and graphical works, as well as elements of the characters – if they are sufficiently developed. Copyright does not protect “stock” characters.

The court determined that Ziko’s game did not infringe any of the protectable elements of Bang! The game play and interactions of the roles and characters in Bang! are not sufficiently detailed or developed to be protectable expressive content, but instead are unprotectable game mechanics and rules.

While I don't think game mechanics should be protected, being able to copy an entire game and just change the names/artwork/assets around seems sketchy to me.

I think the alternative is someone copyrighting baseball or billiards.

What if a game designer filed a patent for the game mechanics, as well as a copyright?

Extra Credits takes on this issue and according to them, you can't really patent it, as it tends to be unenforceable.