Post by PricklyPeaThis situation has me quite confused. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Jeff
sold all rights to Stars to Empire and therefore Jeff cannot give the
right to produce additional serials to anybody nor could he produce a
serial free version without infringing on Empire's rights.
Of course it may be that Jeff retained some rights, but this would be
unusual.
As far as the original Stars! game goes, they apparently retained
rights and ownership of everything except the Stars! name itself.
Remember that the Jeffs developed the game on their own money, and were
distributing a completed version as registerable shareware long before
they met Empire. Empire didn't foot the bill for anything except the
actual retail distribution, so they probably didn't have enough weight
at the negotiations table to get anything more than publishing rights
and the Stars! trademark.
Since they own the code and artwork, the Jeffs can distribute free
serials or a free version of the game without violating copyright. The
trademark is unrelated to copyright - they're free to distribute the
game for free, provided that they change its name. Even if they're
aren't copyright or trademark issues, they could still run afoul of
contract law. It would depend on their publishing agreement with
Empire, but most such contracts prohibit the "programming house" from
denying potential profit to the publisher (witness the whole fiasco re:
Valve's Steam). That may not be the case with Stars! I've got to assume
that the Jeffs are aware of their legal standing with the game, and
wouldn't go through with this if it were going to get their asses sued.
Of course, no company is going to file a lawsuit for *any* reason if
it's going to make them lose money. I love the game, but I can't
imagine that Stars! sales are doing much for Empire. Even if this isn't
quite legally kosher, the Jeffs can probably thumb their noses at
Empire as long as the cost of litigation would exceed the theoretical
deprivation of profit.
Incidentally, the U.S. joined the Berne Convention for copyrights back
in 1989 (I think). Despite common belief, profit is *not* a factor in
determining whether or not an action is a violation of copyright. If
you violate someone's copyright without intent to profit, it's still a
violation. It may affect how much the plaintiff can seek in damages,
but it isn't a defense.