Generalizing a bit here, but the two biggest proponents of anti-free speech, anti-porn laws are religious fundamentalists (right wing), and self-proclaimed feminists (left-wing). The most recent high-profile attempts to regulate language in music and violence in video games have come from Democrats, to my dismay. Moral crusades know no political boundaries.

...those in power make it pretty clear that porn is illegal. In the US, there's all this uncertainty over obscenity, arbitrary definitions of what is or is not art, such that no one really knows whether they are breaking the law until after the fact. And that's the whole point of it, to keep everyone in confusion and fear. Heck, this year we persecuted a man for importing Japanese *comics*. That pretty much revoked our license to poke fun at archaic laws in other countries for the next 20 years.

The original Tron was imaginative because it introduced concepts which were fantastical relative to our knowledge at the time. Tron Legacy doesn't achieve this. Admittedly a tall order, given its source material is nearly 3 decades old. That said, still an entertaining film. Most reviews were perhaps a tad harsh.

No, don't fall for it! Dividing by zero is exactly what the terrorists want you to... *Kaboom!*

Because that wasn't the point of my post. However, if that's what you'd like to know... Recipes are not given copyright protection because combinations of ingredients are discoveries of nature that anyone may stumble upon. (Cook books themselves are, in fact, copyrightable, in that the selection of recipes contain a creative element.) Therefore, recipes of high value are not published, because they are not entitled to copyright protection. Creative arts in fixed form are given copyright protection, therefore artists are encouraged to make their money by publishing in a cheap format that is available to the masses, as opposed to doing work for very few, well-endowed individuals who can financially sustain them. Is that clearer for you?

Because people buy sheet music to study, play in private, whatever. There's no need to get intentionally obtuse here.

>You're attributing all improvements to copyright just as you can be sure if recopies had been allowed to be copyrighted 300 years ago Where have I said anything of the sort? I'm not talking about access to cooks or food, but to recipes. Specifically, comparing the availability of one class of intangibles without protection (recipes) to another with (copyrightable art). A strenuous comparison, for sure, but this is in response to the hypothetical in post above it. Which was a preposterous scenario anyway. If recipes were copyright restricted, why would anyone perceive value in that recipe? Recipes are meant to be implemented. You know, cooking.

Just because no direct monetary gain is observed, does not mean the activity is altruistic. Those who share files gain in the form of *receiving* more shares from others, and perpetuating the mindset that sharing is okay. The way bit torrent is set up requires file hoarders to also be file sharers, does it not?

On the flip side, because recipes are neither copyright-able nor patent-able, they are carefully guarded. They remain secret; they don't gradually flow into the public domain, because there is no incentive to share them. Consider the lengths companies will go to protect the recipes for Coca Cola and Kentucky Fried Chicken, or even within families where certain recipes are passed down through oral tradition only. That's one aspect a lot of people like to overlook in the copyright debate. Copyright exists to compel artists to make cheap art widely available. Before, art was the near-exclusive domain of rich patrons, monarchies, and the Church. And those guys tend not to share.

Also, fan fiction is derivative work, thus a copyright holder absolutely has the right to sue a fan fiction writer for copyright infringement, and will likely prevail. However, such forms of IP infringement are absolutely contingent on the copyright holder taking action (unlike, say, counterfeit products), and most choose not to do so. It is completely at their discretion. Just because this doesn't happen often does not mean the legal vulnerability does not exist. We should be clear about this.

No, no, no. A character *image* and *name* are trademark, when used in a trademark capacity. The fictional character itself is *absolutely* covered by copyright... the character being not just the design, but his behavior, personality, history, actions, the totality of his fictional existence. This is why one cannot take Harry Potter and just create an original story around him... that would still qualify as a derivative work, which is under copyright protection. And because the book is a series, the title "Harry Potter" qualifies for trademark protection. In this case, it is completely relevant to look at the characters, because when taken as a whole (characters, map design, story concept, medium), it is clear this is a copy of Pac-man. We may disagree as to whether the amount of copying rises up to the level of infringement, but there is a clear copyright infringement claim to be made here. The DMCA is appropriate.

Somehow he attracted Namco's attention while those others did not, on a third party web store owned by a major company. Touch luck.

Following the DMCA absolves Google of responsibility in case Namco does decide to pursue further legal options, and Google has no obligation to do do business with any entity it feels may harm it. That is a private decision which needs not take place in a court room; the whole point is for the middle party to avoid the court room. I'm sure if Namco does decide to pursue this in court, there would be many who would call them out for disproportionate use of force. That'd be correct, and I think Namco itself agrees too. The ball is now in the indy developer's court, and after purusing his website and looking at screenshots, it's probably best to just pick the ball up and go home, imho.

Your understanding of copyright law is imperfect. The copying need not be exact. Method of copying need not be mechanical. You've copied the creative expression of the Pac Man characters and the map designs. You've reproduced the entire atmosphere of Pac Man. Copying the gameplay, however, is perfectly fine. Why not retool the game with a little more of your personal creativity? Surely that's more attractive than constantly trying to find how closely you can skirt the law.

Game play is not copyrightable. However, it is very clear this guy copied the character design, map design, and "general spirit" of Pac-Man. Those are copyrightable, and it doesn't matter what method was used to do the copying, it doesn't matter that he didn't lift assets directly from Pac-Man; they are similar enough when taken as a whole to be clear infringement. And let's not forget about the blatant trademark infringement (Pac is a unique word, so its trademark protection is extra strong.) He doesn't need a lawyer. He needs to remake his game with original characters/level designs/storyline, i.e. actually become creative, or partner with someone who is.