Eric Anondson said:
The Open Game License guru, Ryan Dancey, has spoken about OSRIC's license page assertions on the
ogf-l mailing list. Here it is reproduced:
[snip]
To the extent that the charts of ability scores do not represent a non-linear mathmatical function (i.e., the figures are arbitrarily made up by the original writer) they're protected by copyright and can't be reused without permission.
To the extent that the class & racial limitations and individual power descriptions and level dependent abilities and game modifiers match those of AD&D (any edition) and are not the result of a simple linear mathematical function, those templates represent selection, arrangement and presentation copyrights inherent in AD&D and suffer the same limitations.
Spell names which are not OGC but are in AD&D and are "not obvious" (i.e. they contain some creative element) are copyright by WotC.
The 'to hit' charts, to the extent that they represent non-linear functions, are protected by WotC copyright.
[snip]
I’m not Stuart’s attorney, and this isn’t in any way an official stance, so take this as you will.
Mr.Dancey’s analysis is insightful, and might even be applicable in certain areas of copyright law. It is compact and elegant. It isn’t the law, it’s an opinion about how the law should be construed, but it is a fascinating approach from the legal perspective.
The idea is that when an author has the infinite scope of numbers to choose from, his selection of particular numbers is as meaningful as the selection of a word, and thus embodies a protectable, tangible expression of creativity. Certainly, even, when numbers are used as words, this is true. If I name a fictional character 45672391, that “name” is almost certainly going to be protectable to a certain degree under copyright law in the same way that a random name using letter-characters would enjoy protection. This is not the area of copyright law that is implicated in “to-hit” tables, but it illustrates that Mr. Dancey’s theory has grounding in copyright law – just not in the applicable part of copyright law.
Also, Mr. Dancey has largely addressed the right issue in looking at OSRIC, in the sense that he realizes that we are not in any way seeking to copy the rulebooks, but the underlying, abstract and nontangible rules themselves, as expressed by numbers plus licenced reference points that give those numbers meaning. OSRIC doesn’t copy a book, it creates a numerical system compatible with the intangible rules expressed in the original books.
How does this play out in less theoretical language? It’s fascinating stuff.
There are two approaches that can be taken to illustrate why Mr. Dancey’s theory doesn’t apply to games – at least, not to tabletop games (computer games, with an infinite number of numbers available, might actually fall into this theory, but that’s not relevant here).
First test of the Dancey theory: apply it to a system that’s clearly not copyrightable and see if it generates the right answer.
Second test: go in reverse and see if the underlying principles of the Dancey theory match with the hit points table he’s specifically applying it to.
First test: Imagine that Chess has never been invented, and someone invents it today, 8/18/06. He does all the right things: trademarks the name “Chess,” and asserts a copyright over the 8x8 board, the look of the pieces, and his rulebook. A week later, someone reads the rulebook, looks at the chessboard, and manufactures an identical game, but with a different rulebook describing the same rules. (OSRIC’s rules, as has been pointed out, are not identical, but this is a hypothetical example that we want to keep clean of other issues). The name of the “new” game is “Mega.” How would a court rule? First, if the pieces look identical to the classic chess pieces, it’s probably a copyright violation (I’m not discussing trademarks). The pieces need to look different because they are like statues, and copyright law covers statues. The 8x8 gameboard is absolutely not copyrightable. We know that the law says the “rules” are not protected. Mr. Dancey’s theory would, however, initimate that the moves of the chesspieces, since they are arbitrary choices of the author not determined by any sort of formula, would be protected as an artistic expression. The original author had the full scope of moves available, and thus the knight’s peculiar move, the choice of the bishop’s diagonal move, all of these are plucked from the air. Moreover, the pawn can engage in an absolutely peculiar progression into a queen. The nature of this pawn-to-queen progression is unrelated to anything mathematical (other than the fact that the queen is one of the existing pieces). It makes sense for the pawn to perhaps gain the movement characteristics of all the pieces – but it doesn’t get the knight’s move. The moves and the progression in chess are arbitrary and cannot be explained by any formula. It is indeed the brilliance and timelessness of the game of chess that these arbitrary moves create a world of mathematical analysis of their interplay, so vast that human players still routinely defeat computers. Under Mr. Dancey’s theory that a progression must be mathematically generated, chess would seem to be the ideal test.
And yet, I cannot conceive that a judge would hold these highly arbitrary attributes of chess to be protected by copyright if chess were suddenly invented today.
The example of board games where a player’s cash or other attributes increases or decreases by the utterly non-linear changes mandated by “spaces” hit on a board is perhaps even more telling than the simpler example of chess. If I play a board game and hit a space that tells me to move using a different die than before, that’s non-linear. The non-linearity of the progression is what makes the game fun. That’s just an aside, since chess is my example, but it’s worthy of consideration.
Second test: It is true that the vast infinity of numbers, used as the source of choice, might arguably approximate the meaning of words (but see above). Let us consider to what degree the selection of numbers is infinite in a role playing game. A game is played in human dimensions. The math must be within the scope not only of human comprehension, but of easy use. Similarly, in a dice-based game, the numbers are generated on pieces of plastic with a finite number of sides. Out of this finite number of sides, in a to-hit roll, the small spread of numbers must accommodate a range of “miss” numbers and the random spread of possibilities to accommodate different classes of armor – all within the reach of easy mathematical use by a human. In human scope, the infinities of choice required to support Mr. Dancey’s theory are simply not available in practical terms.
The foreclosure of numbers and procedures for using them is precisely the reason why courts have consistently ruled that a particular use of numbers cannot be used to foreclose another game manufacturer from using the same numbers in rules, procedures, etc.
Mr. Dancey is effectively asserting that WotC would have a legal monopoly, with the right to sue, anyone using a progression such as +1, +3, +4, +20, +2 …in an area where people need to be able to add numbers in their heads. That is a limited field of numbers, far from the infinity required to support the equivalency of numbers to words.
So I think test 2 fails as well. The premise of Mr. Dancey’s theory does not match up with the practical realities of a game. This is precisely why games have their own category of copyright law; because they are played in the human dimension.
All this is in the high air of theory, of course, but I love theory.
Anyway, I think Mr. Dancey’s theory (as well as existing law, which would be applied more bluntly) fails as a theory of copyright.