I went hereand work for a Law Firm In New York City. But if you read my first post on the matter you would see. I mentioned I know maybe just a little something about the law as it pertains to this case. Might not be as knowledgeable as the guy who posts on this thread that works in oh I don’t know any other field but law.
Personal credentials do not equal support for an argument. I'll admit my focus is patent law not copyright so I'm not an expert. You most likely do know more about the ins and outs of copyright law than I do.
So far the only "arguments" you have given are "I'm a lawyer, and you are wrong."
Are you aware, then, that it's possible to have a copyright in a compilation of items, even if you don't have a copyright in the items themselves? Because every time anyone mentions that, you just start waving around your supposed law degree.
Assuming you're aware of that, please explain how the NYT bestseller list (from my post above) is any different from this.
I’m getting the feeling no one is actually reading ALL of my posts, or using selective reading.
I’m talking about 2 different things.
1: an ARTICLE that mentions a deck in the CONTENTS of an ARTICLE referring to more then THE DECK ITSSELF. This DOES FALL under copyright protection.
2: A deck you play the game with.
Can you post an ARTICLE form SCG… Not with out premission.
Can you post a deck list you got from STG and leave out the article its self? YES, BECAUSE YOU CAN’T PROVE THE DECK LIST CAME FORM SCG.
Now if you were to say “I got this deck from SCG” you’re walking a different path.
Now if you were to say “I got this deck from SCG” you’re walking a different path. But I have mentioned this multiple times.
We've mentioned several times that the people at issue in this thread (those who respond to requests for a specific premium decklist from SCG) would be effectively admitting to copying - i.e., "walking the different path." So I don't understand why you persisted in your analysis of the "original" path - where provability was an issue - when no one was on it but you.
In any case, whether it can be proven that a given decklist came from SCG is immaterial to the question you claim to be addressing, which is whether SCG can (even in theory) have a copyright in that decklist. They may have a copyright, regardless of whether they can prove it to your satisfaction.
I’m getting the feeling no one is actually reading ALL of my posts, or using selective reading.
I’m talking about 2 different things.
1: an ARTICLE that mentions a deck in the CONTENTS of an ARTICLE referring to more then THE DECK ITSSELF. This DOES FALL under copyright protection.
2: A deck you play the game with.
Can you post an ARTICLE form SCG… Not with out premission.
Can you post a deck list you got from STG and leave out the article its self? YES, BECAUSE YOU CAN’T PROVE THE DECK LIST CAME FORM SCG.
Now if you were to say “I got this deck from SCG” you’re walking a different path.
But I have mentioned this multiple times.
You can't just change what you are saying after you have said it. Myself and others have mentioned MULTIPLE times that provability is not the issue in this thread. you are the one who has been selectively ignoring it.
The issue is "is it illegal to post the deck that you copied?" NOT "can SCG prove that I copied this illegally"
Additionally the multiple infractions / warnings you have had don't help your credibility much.
You can't just change what you are saying after you have said it. Myself and others have mentioned MULTIPLE times that provability is not the issue in this thread. you are the one who has been selectively ignoring it.
The issue is "is it illegal to post the deck that you copied?" NOT "can SCG prove that I copied this illegally"
Additionally the multiple infractions / warnings you have had don't help your credibility much.
Now that you cleared up the matter ill give my fanal answer.
SCG has no contract between them and WOTC. Stating they can freely post card decks with cards made by WOTC. (that I know of, and we will say for the sake of argument they don’t)
So by your logic WOTC can take action against SCG for making such posts. Or anyone for that matter. But the laws DOES IN FACT prohibit them from being able to do so. In THIS SPECIFIC MATTER.
No contract would ever be made because, WOTC frankly does NOT care who makes posts featuring decks of cards made by WOTC. AND they are making a TCG and SALE a product with a format that warrants if you will the posting of different cards, and builds. (I’m not breaking this one down for you, it is complicated if you don’t understand points 1, 2 and 3 in this post)
Because SCG has no agreement with WOTC. SCG cannot take action against someone using a deck list that was posted on SCG webpage featuring cards who’s CC is owned by WOTC and not SCG.
So it’s not as easy as “"is it illegal to post the deck that you copied?" IN what context are you reposting it? If you include anything other then the CADR LIST ITS SELF, It can fall under copyright restriction laws. If you are just posting a card list EVEN IF you say I got this Card list form SCG, as long as nothing but the CARD LIST is reposted. It is not illegal.
If you are just posting a card list EVEN IF you say I got this Card list form SCG, as long as nothing but the CARD LIST is reposted. It is not illegal.
Can Amazon then publish the New York Times bestseller list? If the answer to that question is a clear "yes," then why did Amazon have to offer concessions to get NYT to back off their threat of an infringement suit?
I'd also like to note that, above, you said "Now if you were to say 'I got this deck from SCG' you’re walking a different path." I take it that this is no longer your position - that whether one admits to the copying or not makes no difference as to the legality of the copying?
Can Amazon then publish the New York Times bestseller list? If the answer to that question is a clear "yes," then why did Amazon have to offer concessions to get NYT to back off their threat of an infringement suit? [/color]
[COLOR=black]Correct me if I’m wrong but you did mention you having a background in law like my self in a previous post. So let me ask you this. Can you buy a copy of the NYT bestseller list and edit as you wish and make a “better NYTBS list” and still call it the NYT bestseller list? Can you buy magic cards and build your own deck and still call it a magic deck. See what I’m saying? The purpose of the game is to make your own deck. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black] I'd also like to note that, above, you said "Now if you were to say 'I got this deck from SCG' you’re walking a different path." I take it that this is no longer your position - that whether one admits to the copying or not makes no difference as to the legality of the copying? [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]That if you read the post and the other posts individually in context to the reply I was offering at the time. You will see I was referring to taking the article form SCG. (Article in this case the story and the deck list including the story associated with the list.)[/COLOR]
Can you buy a copy of the NYT bestseller list and edit as you wish and make a “better NYTBS list” and still call it the NYT bestseller list? Can you buy magic cards and build your own deck and still call it a magic deck. See what I’m saying? The purpose of the game is to make your own deck.
I don't see the relevance of any of this. If someone posted a modified version of the deck, there may not be a copyright problem? That's not the situation we're discussing. We're discussing the legality of posting an identical copy of a decklist from a premium SCG article.
That if you read the post and the other posts individually in context to the reply I was offering at the time. You will see I was referring to taking the article form SCG.
Everyone knows that the article is copyrighted. The original poster talks about "decklists from a Premium article" and wonders if "decklists [are] the property of SCG." No one has asserted otherwise anywhere in this thread.
Please, try to stay focused on the decklists. Your repeated discussions of the articles (which, again, are obviously copyrighted) are only muddling the waters.
I will just toss in my 2 cents and see how fast it sinks...
Short answer, no. You cannot post the premium decklists without SCG's consent (the email will confirm).
based on this
Quote from SCG »
Become a StarCityGames.com Premium Member and receive exclusive access to top-level strategies, new decklists and entertaining reports from many of the best players and writers that the game has to offer!
It seems quite obvious that SCG wishes to keep their premium deck lists to themselves.
Now, whether or not they have the legal right to enforce that particular clause is up in the air. I would say SCG has copyright over the article and all the contents therein. If they wanted the decklists available to the non-subscribing community, they would have it in the database for all to see. Since they don't, you can only assume they make people pay for the privilage to see these lists (so they have the money to pay the authors and make a few bucks on the side).
If someone posts a deck that just happens to be the same as a premium SCG list, it is either cause they had the exact same idea, or they copied it. But either way, no one can really tell unless the poster says "I copied this from SCG...here it is". Even if they do that, would SCG go after that person? That is a question for another thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am looking for Date Stamped promos from Khans of Tarkir block so I can finish my set. Check my wants if you have any.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
Now that you cleared up the matter ill give my fanal answer.
SCG has no contract between them and WOTC. Stating they can freely post card decks with cards made by WOTC. (that I know of, and we will say for the sake of argument they don’t)
So by your logic WOTC can take action against SCG for making such posts. Or anyone for that matter. But the laws DOES IN FACT prohibit them from being able to do so. In THIS SPECIFIC MATTER.
No contract would ever be made because, WOTC frankly does NOT care who makes posts featuring decks of cards made by WOTC. AND they are making a TCG and SALE a product with a format that warrants if you will the posting of different cards, and builds. (I’m not breaking this one down for you, it is complicated if you don’t understand points 1, 2 and 3 in this post)
Because SCG has no agreement with WOTC. SCG cannot take action against someone using a deck list that was posted on SCG webpage featuring cards who’s CC is owned by WOTC and not SCG.
So it’s not as easy as “"is it illegal to post the deck that you copied?" IN what context are you reposting it? If you include anything other then the CADR LIST ITS SELF, It can fall under copyright restriction laws. If you are just posting a card list EVEN IF you say I got this Card list form SCG, as long as nothing but the CARD LIST is reposted. It is not illegal.
Hope this clears it up.
Please stay on topic here. Contract law has NO bearing on whether a copyright exists. Contracts cannot make or destroy copyright they can assign it or sell it.
I'll break down both sides of this issue here:
What we are saying: The list is a compilation that SCG made therefore they have a copyright in it.
What you are saying: They don't own the copyright to the specific titles to each item in the list, therefore they cannot have a copyright in the list itself.
One big difference between this and the NYT Best Sellers List is that NYT actually does have agreements with the the authors/distributors of all the titles on it's list (it MUST recieve permission to list it, which, since it's basically free press for the titles, is easy to get). SCG does not (as far as I am aware of or is stated anywhere on SCG) have any direct contract or agreement with WotC for the same thing.
"Can someone give me the recipe for Betty Crockers Chocolate Chip Cookies?" If I ask this, just for the direct recipe from the Betty Crocker Cook Book, is it in violation of copyright laws for someone to post it? I'm not asking about some ambiguity here "Here is some non-descript recipe for chocolate chip cookies", but rather "Yes, here is the recipe directly from Betty Crockers Cook Book", is this legal?
Honestly, I don't see how SCG can own a decklist, especially in concerns to M:tG. As has been stated before, there is a finite number of cards (especially when it comes to specific formats like Block or Standard), and specific rules for how those cards can be used. Through tried and true testing and deckbuilding, it is easily plausable that numerous people have discovered the same deck, therefore it's difficult (if not impossible) to declare "Yes, this deck was solely my own creation".
I'm speaking on a broader prospective here, as well, on the subject of "Can SCG own rights to a decklist posted in their article?". If SCG can not definitivley state that they created the decklist themselves (or that the author did), and that it was never even conceived prior to their posting of the decklist, then how can they own it? Even if you specifically state "Here is the deck listed in the article", how are you violating anything if a copyright can't be proven?
As a note, this is all just my interpretation, I have been known to be wrong in the past (seriously, who knew that Communism wouldn't work out?).
Personal credentials do not equal support for an argument. I'll admit my focus is patent law not copyright so I'm not an expert. You most likely do know more about the ins and outs of copyright law than I do.
So far the only "arguments" you have given are "I'm a lawyer, and you are wrong."
I’m getting the feeling no one is actually reading ALL of my posts, or using selective reading.
I’m talking about 2 different things.
1: an ARTICLE that mentions a deck in the CONTENTS of an ARTICLE referring to more then THE DECK ITSSELF. This DOES FALL under copyright protection.
2: A deck you play the game with.
Can you post an ARTICLE form SCG… Not with out premission.
Can you post a deck list you got from STG and leave out the article its self? YES, BECAUSE YOU CAN’T PROVE THE DECK LIST CAME FORM SCG.
Now if you were to say “I got this deck from SCG” you’re walking a different path.
But I have mentioned this multiple times.
In any case, whether it can be proven that a given decklist came from SCG is immaterial to the question you claim to be addressing, which is whether SCG can (even in theory) have a copyright in that decklist. They may have a copyright, regardless of whether they can prove it to your satisfaction.
You can't just change what you are saying after you have said it. Myself and others have mentioned MULTIPLE times that provability is not the issue in this thread. you are the one who has been selectively ignoring it.
The issue is "is it illegal to post the deck that you copied?" NOT "can SCG prove that I copied this illegally"
Additionally the multiple infractions / warnings you have had don't help your credibility much.
Now that you cleared up the matter ill give my fanal answer.
Hope this clears it up.
I'd also like to note that, above, you said "Now if you were to say 'I got this deck from SCG' you’re walking a different path." I take it that this is no longer your position - that whether one admits to the copying or not makes no difference as to the legality of the copying?
[COLOR=black]Correct me if I’m wrong but you did mention you having a background in law like my self in a previous post. So let me ask you this. Can you buy a copy of the NYT bestseller list and edit as you wish and make a “better NYTBS list” and still call it the NYT bestseller list? Can you buy magic cards and build your own deck and still call it a magic deck. See what I’m saying? The purpose of the game is to make your own deck. [/COLOR]
[COLOR=black]That if you read the post and the other posts individually in context to the reply I was offering at the time. You will see I was referring to taking the article form SCG. (Article in this case the story and the deck list including the story associated with the list.)[/COLOR]
Everyone knows that the article is copyrighted. The original poster talks about "decklists from a Premium article" and wonders if "decklists [are] the property of SCG." No one has asserted otherwise anywhere in this thread.
Please, try to stay focused on the decklists. Your repeated discussions of the articles (which, again, are obviously copyrighted) are only muddling the waters.
The answer is NO.
Short answer, no. You cannot post the premium decklists without SCG's consent (the email will confirm).
based on this
It seems quite obvious that SCG wishes to keep their premium deck lists to themselves.
Now, whether or not they have the legal right to enforce that particular clause is up in the air. I would say SCG has copyright over the article and all the contents therein. If they wanted the decklists available to the non-subscribing community, they would have it in the database for all to see. Since they don't, you can only assume they make people pay for the privilage to see these lists (so they have the money to pay the authors and make a few bucks on the side).
If someone posts a deck that just happens to be the same as a premium SCG list, it is either cause they had the exact same idea, or they copied it. But either way, no one can really tell unless the poster says "I copied this from SCG...here it is". Even if they do that, would SCG go after that person? That is a question for another thread.
Currently offering 2 non-foil Kolighan's Command for a Date Stamped foil!
convert bulk into good cards? PucaTrade - https://pucatrade.com/invite/gift/21195
Ebay - decks/Promos/DVDs
Trade thread (constantly updated)
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/trading-post/details/337-pokerbob1s-casual-trading-emporium
Please stay on topic here. Contract law has NO bearing on whether a copyright exists. Contracts cannot make or destroy copyright they can assign it or sell it.
I'll break down both sides of this issue here:
What we are saying: The list is a compilation that SCG made therefore they have a copyright in it.
What you are saying: They don't own the copyright to the specific titles to each item in the list, therefore they cannot have a copyright in the list itself.
Is that a correct assessment of the issue?
"Can someone give me the recipe for Betty Crockers Chocolate Chip Cookies?" If I ask this, just for the direct recipe from the Betty Crocker Cook Book, is it in violation of copyright laws for someone to post it? I'm not asking about some ambiguity here "Here is some non-descript recipe for chocolate chip cookies", but rather "Yes, here is the recipe directly from Betty Crockers Cook Book", is this legal?
Honestly, I don't see how SCG can own a decklist, especially in concerns to M:tG. As has been stated before, there is a finite number of cards (especially when it comes to specific formats like Block or Standard), and specific rules for how those cards can be used. Through tried and true testing and deckbuilding, it is easily plausable that numerous people have discovered the same deck, therefore it's difficult (if not impossible) to declare "Yes, this deck was solely my own creation".
I'm speaking on a broader prospective here, as well, on the subject of "Can SCG own rights to a decklist posted in their article?". If SCG can not definitivley state that they created the decklist themselves (or that the author did), and that it was never even conceived prior to their posting of the decklist, then how can they own it? Even if you specifically state "Here is the deck listed in the article", how are you violating anything if a copyright can't be proven?
As a note, this is all just my interpretation, I have been known to be wrong in the past (seriously, who knew that Communism wouldn't work out?).
SCG Premium articles go non-premium after 90 days.
Magic Rules Advisor
How Creatures Die
Targets | Triggered Abilities | Priority and the Stack | Older Articles