Space Taxi - is there a Clone for Atari 8-Bits?

[+Philsan]

Thank you guys.

All the praise should go to author, not me.

 

Perhaps in-game "taxy" is only a misspelling, with author we never talked about a name change.

 

Later I will post screenshots from other levels (I am not home now).

[TMR]

We have more todays conversions that keeps the original name like Tezz's Manic Miner and Barbarian or Pavros IK+ so where's the problem?

 

In all of those cases unless they've actually gone out and found the rights holders, they're legally in the wrong for both using the name and directly copying the game so, if those companies or individuals decide to get upset about the A8 version, that could see it stamped on. It doesn't happen often because in some cases they don't mind/care whilst others feel it makes them look good to let it slide and it's more likely to be a current platform remake, but it does happen.

 

The same is true of Space Taxi - unless the current owner of the rights decides to let a conversion of their property slide, it doesn't make much difference if the name is a little different; you could change it completely and still get into hot water.

[Bill Loguidice]

I'm not sure if anyone still owns the rights considering how Muse went out, but even so, I'd rather see something like "Space Cab," over "Space Taxy". If one were so motivated, I suppose the author could get in contact with the original programmer, John Kutcher, and see if he has any issue with using the original name. If shouldn't be a big deal either way, though, considering it's not copying the code.

[+Philsan]

Two more screenshots:

[TMR]

I'm not sure if anyone still owns the rights considering how Muse went out

 

 

Somebody will still own them because it's hard for these things to fall through the cracks, but working out who is usually harder if a company gets broken up. That apparently didn't happen to MUSE, because Mobygames has some notes:

 

Muse software was initially founded in 1978 by Ed Zaron for publishing games for Apple computers. They also developed non-game software for the Apple computers and other computers in the 1980's. MUSE Software declared bankruptcy in 1986, and was purchased in its entiriety by a Company named Variety Discounters, located in Mt Airy, MD. The Company was sold by Variety Discounters in 1988 to Jack L. Vogt, who continued to operate the Company which was then located in Monrovia, MD.

 

 

So Mr Vogt would appear to be the man to talk to and, since there's another note to point out that the "rights to all MUSE Software products were then and remain now the sole property of Jack L. Vogt, Owner of MUSE Software Company", in reference to the Wolfenstein games, it seems he may well be protecting his assets; tread carefully and be polite if you get in touch with him, lads.

[José Pereira]

Probably more because of the Wolfenstein name.

Yes, it doesn't seem a bad idea to contact and ask him. It's for the pleasure of the conversion to another old machine and not to win money.

If it was a modern remake to sell every download copy then he sure may want his part.

But it's only me thinking like a crazy old retro and A8 fan that thinks that if it's not to sell than any old machine coder should have the rights to convert any other 'enemy' machine unreleased game to his 'old loving' machine.

Edited July 21, 2013 by José Pereira

[+Philsan]

Two more levels:

[Aking]

too difficult for me

[Tezz]

We have more todays conversions that keeps the original name like Tezz's Manic Miner and Barbarian or Pavros IK+ so where's the problem?

 

In all of those cases unless they've actually gone out and found the rights holders, they're legally in the wrong for both using the name and directly copying the game so, if those companies or individuals decide to get upset about the A8 version, that could see it stamped on. It doesn't happen often because in some cases they don't mind/care whilst others feel it makes them look good to let it slide and it's more likely to be a current platform remake, but it does happen.

Well, my intentions personally are only to enjoy the process of recreating the games for the A8 in my spare time (along with the challenge in doing so) and for the enjoyment of others. I have no intention of entering into competitions, charging or making money ever in any shape or form from retro computing, it's all just for fun but technically yes it is breaking copyright although for a few hobbyists to use on a defunct platform with no financial gain.

Edited July 25, 2013 by Tezz

[TMR]

Well, my intentions personally are only to enjoy the process of recreating the games for the A8 in my spare time (along with the challenge in doing so) and for the enjoyment of others. I have no intention of entering into competitions, charging or making money ever in any shape or form from retro computing, it's all just for fun but technically yes it is breaking copyright although for a few hobbyists to use on a defunct platform with no financial gain.

 

 

That's the sh*tty bit to be honest; i doubt anyone sane doing ports/close conversions on any of the 8-bits is doing it for the money (the nutters deserve everything they get!) and we're all here for the love and the groupies... or is that just me?

 

But the rights holders are in a lot of cases obliged to play the bad guy even though i doubt many of the ones who aren't lawyers or large corporations with lawyers actually want to; it's not really good business practice to urinate on the good will your brand has by stamping on a niche format clone but these things can, i believe, be used as the thin end of a legal wedge by others trying to infringe more blatantly.

 

In the case of Ultimate, their stuff isn't held in the World Of Spectrum archives because they refused permission, so porting those games to other platforms will always have a small risk. And, as i've mentioned elsewhere and possibly here, i've received a cease and desist email over the name of one of my own games in the past so i know this stuff happens from time to time... i still have that email. =-)

[carmel_andrews]

That's the sh*tty bit to be honest; i doubt anyone sane doing ports/close conversions on any of the 8-bits is doing it for the money (the nutters deserve everything they get!) and we're all here for the love and the groupies... or is that just me?

 

But the rights holders are in a lot of cases obliged to play the bad guy even though i doubt many of the ones who aren't lawyers or large corporations with lawyers actually want to; it's not really good business practice to urinate on the good will your brand has by stamping on a niche format clone but these things can, i believe, be used as the thin end of a legal wedge by others trying to infringe more blatantly.

 

In the case of Ultimate, their stuff isn't held in the World Of Spectrum archives because they refused permission, so porting those games to other platforms will always have a small risk. And, as i've mentioned elsewhere and possibly here, i've received a cease and desist email over the name of one of my own games in the past so i know this stuff happens from time to time... i still have that email. =-)

 

 

 

 

 

We are not worthy (Wayne's world)

 

Thats nintendo/Microshaft for you, since if i recall rightly, Ultimate evolved into rare which nintendo partially invested in then got bought out by Microshaft

 

Doesn't Chris Stamper (one of the co founders of rare/ultimate) have ANY interest in the classic systems (especially the speccy) or is he only in the gaming biz for the money/glory

[TMR]

Thats nintendo/Microshaft for you, since if i recall rightly, Ultimate evolved into rare which nintendo partially invested in then got bought out by Microshaft

 

 

 

 

It's Microsoft now (or will be if anything happens) but as far as i'm aware the WOS denial came from ACG/Rare when it was still the Stampers at the helm. But that's the legal position they're forced into and it isn't just Ultimate; Codemasters games are denied at World Of Spectrum, First Star games can't be grabbed from Gamebase 64 and so on.

 

Doesn't Chris Stamper (one of the co founders of rare/ultimate) have ANY interest in the classic systems (especially the speccy) or is he only in the gaming biz for the money/glory

 

 

It's hard to be sure, but the Stampers never seemed to be there for the glory and kept themselves out of the media spotlight quite effectively, especially during the Ultimate years; most of the Ultimate Spectrum games had no credits on despite the Stampers being the primary developers.

[José Pereira]

Any of the Ultimate ports to A8 ever got any letter from the todays copyright owners?

Did XXL asked the permition for Knight Lore or now Fandal?

Do you or most of you coders ask first and code after?

What you really think when going to port a game: you want to see it on A8? And/Or don't start try just because these or that guys will not authorize?

[+Philsan]

Puzzler level:

 

[+CharlieChaplin]

Any news on that one ?!?

[uNi73]

I remember that I played it a lot, but cant remember the gameplay at all. Yep, one of the fascinating things was of course

the speech samples it was kinda "revolutionary" (for me)

 

Did You know? The first speaking machine was owned around 985 and 1003 a.c.

by Gerbert von Aurillac (later name: Silvester II also known as Gerbert von Reims)?

He was a pope and had to do with black magic

 

I think he got the head from a journey to arabia.

 

sorry for off topic

[+Philsan]

8 levels are completed (out of 24, speech is missing).

 

Author has not time to work on the project.

I hope he will find it in the future because the game is coming along nicely.

[tjlazer]

Looking forward to this port!

[_The Doctor__]

Did you know that many Atari 8 bit computer games were not copyrighted or no rights were reserved? They thought the real money was still in the VCS 2600 and only reserved or held copyrights on those works.

 

Just the copyright basics.....In court the biggest factor is about money (commercial or non-commercial Use)

works published before 1964 that did not have their copyrights renewed 28 years after first publication year also are in the public domain. Hirtle points out that the great majority of these works (including 93% of the books) were not renewed after 28 years and are in the public domain

If the author has been dead more than 50(before 1998) or (after 1998) 70 years, the work is in the public domain

Works published from 1964 through 1978.
The initial copyrighted term of the work was 28 years from the date of publication

Works created on or after January 1, 1978.
The following rules apply to published and unpublished works:

•For one author, the work is copyright-protected for the life of the author plus 70 years.
•For joint authors, the work is protected for the life of the surviving author plus 70 years.

If the source code is made available the copyright is off

The first distributed work or copy must be copyrighted in it's content or code or printed on it's box or label. If not marked it is in the public domain.

in 1989 notice of copyright became optional before 1989 if you did not provide notice and marks you lost it

before 1978 you had to renew copyrights if you failed to renew you lost it modern copyrights can automatically renew 1 time.

renewed extensions can go from 14 to 28 years.

registration is required before any infringement suit can be filed for a domestic work, {FN36: 17 U.S.C. §411} and timely registration is required for certain remedies. {FN37: 17 U.S.C. §412} Registration is simple and inexpensive. You simply fill out a form and send it to the Copyright Office, along with two copies of the work and a $30 registration fee. Information regarding registration, and the necessary forms, can be found at the Copyright Office’s Web site:http://www.loc.gov/copyright

 

Must provide the original work at trial, if was not originally registered no original works is a big problem.

 

To help build the collection of the Library of Congress, Section 407 requires that copies of published works be given at no cost to the Library. If the required deposit is not made, the Library can fine the copyright owner and purchase the work. The Librarian of Congress may exempt certain works, whose donation would work a hardship on the copyright owner, or can reduce copies reuired to one.

 

Copyright mis-use... if the entity makes their own copyright rules ie.. claiming a longer duration of protection than the law itself prescribes... loss of copyright until all instances of the act are remedied.

 

Related to copyright misuse is fraud on the Copyright Office, where somebody has registered a copyright by providing false information or concealing important information. An example would be somebody claiming and registering the copyright in a work that is not his, such as a work prepared as an employee within the scope of that employment (a work made for hire). As with copyright misuse, the result of copyright fraud is that the courts will not enforce the copyright covered by the registration nor any of the work built apon it. However if the rights were held by the worker and the company trys to copyright it as their own the converse is true. The company can not enforce the copyright and the worker gains the copyright protection.

 

Copyright misuse and its consequences should be considered by anyone who is trying to use his or her copyright to go beyond the protection of the copyright laws.

 

The penalty for copyright misuse or fraud– unenforceability of the copyright in court until the misuse has been purged and its effects no longer exist and is tantamount to losing the copyright.

 

http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/litigationnews/practice_areas/072810-intellectual-property-copyright-misuse-overview.html

 

http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise15.html

 

.[1] Most often, the defense applies where the rights holder has included terms in its typical license agreement that are unreasonably anticompetitive, such as prohibiting the use of competing products,[2] or prohibiting the licensee from independent creation of a noninfringing product that would compete with the copyrighted product or would contribute to the public good.[3] The defense also applies when a rights holder attempts to mislead or defraud an infringer by unfairly threatening infringement penalties that exaggerate or misstate the law,[4] or by claiming copyright in a work that is at least partly in the public domain.[5]

Where the affirmative defense of copyright misuse has been proven, the copyright holder is prevented from enforcing its copyright until it demonstrates that it has purged the misuse by abandoning the inappropriate conduct, and in cases where the misuse had actual anticompetitive consequences, the rights holder must prove that those consequences have dissipated.[6] If this isn’t shown, the copyright can’t be enforced.

 

 

Fair use works well when learning how to code...http://www.teachingcopyright.org/handout/fair-use-faq

 

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2011/11/15/costco-prevails-in-first-sale-case-thanks-to-copyright-misuse/id=20449/

Edited October 31, 2014 by _The Doctor__

[_The Doctor__]

But what does it all mean......alot of Atari 8-bit computer stuff is under the old rules..... not the new or modern rules.. grandfathered....

 

copyright mis-use is something that started the whole Sparta-DOS/BBS Express Pro! mess.... a Pool of patent/copyright attorneys feel under todays rules Cardin would win for a multitude of reasons. It's just a matter of money.... and the right representation...

Edited October 31, 2014 by _The Doctor__

[_The Doctor__]

Of course a parody or educational purpose wins out as well...

 

upon first submitting to Lady Gaga's manager for approval (which Yankovic does as a courtesy), he was not given permission to release his parody of her song commercially. As he had previously done under similar circumstances (with his parody of James Blunt's "You're Beautiful"), Yankovic then released the song for free on the internet.

 

I mean even Weird Al Yonkovic get's confronted by the 'copyright police' for a big show down.... you know how he wins..... he released his parody on the internet free of charge for all to download..... ppppppbbbbbbbt... the big raspberry.. AL your the coolest!

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUxXKfQkswE

Edited October 31, 2014 by _The Doctor__

[Heaven/TQA]

so basicly MULE et al are Public Domain? But can you not apply for "brand" copyright? which does not mean the game itself but like FIFA Soccer for EA?

[emkay]

If that is right, you could use the game M.U.L.E. . Release it under a new name, Maulesel f.E. , put your own company in and sell it , without any "cease and desist" troubles...

[Shawn Jefferson]

Copyright is not something you have to apply for, or register (at least in current laws as I understand them... all the video game works would fall under this, AFAIK.) A work is copyright-ed implicitly. You can register it with the copyright office, and that helps in court when you need to protect your IP.

 

Trademark is a different animal and shouldn't be confused with copyright.

Edited November 2, 2014 by Shawn Jefferson

[bbking67]

weird al takes advantage of the "fair use" clause. His work is derivative as a form of parody... so in fact he does not need permission from the artists. he chooses to ask for permission as a professional courtesy.