Tetris Clones Pulled From Android Market 396
sbrubblesman writes "The Tetris Company, LLC has notified Google to remove all Tetris clones from Android Market. I am one of the developers of FallingBlocks, a game with the same gameplay concepts as Tetris. I have received an email warning that my game was suspended from Android Market due to a violation of the Developer Content Policy. When I received the email, I already imagined that it had something to do with it being a Tetris clone, but besides having the same gameplay as Tetris, which I believe cannot be copyrighted, the game uses its own name, graphics and sounds. There's no reference to 'Tetris' in our game. I have emailed Google asking what is the reason for the application removal. Google promptly answered that The Tetris Company, LLC notified them under the DMCA (PDF) to remove various Tetris clones from Android Market. My app was removed together with 35 other Tetris clones. I checked online at various sources, and all of them say that there's no copyright on gameplay. There could be some sort of patent. But even if they had one, it would last 20 years, so it would have been over in 2005. It's a shame that The Tetris Company, LLC uses its power to stop developers from creating good and free games for Android users. Without resources for a legal fight, our application and many others will cease to exist, even knowing that they are legit. Users will be forced to buy the paid, official version, which is worse than many of the ones available for free on the market. Users from other countries, such as Brazil in my case, won't even be able to play the official Tetris, since Google Checkout doesn't exist in Brazil; you can't buy paid applications from Android Market in these countries."
Apparently it's only a trademark problem (Score:2, Interesting)
After reading the document, the whole argument seems to hinge on the use of the Tetris registered name. (Many of the infringing applications were using the Tetris name in the application name)
There are at least two dimensions on which you can get it back up:
Falling Blocks is still available (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Instead of whining educate yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
If I'm not mistaken, that's an article about board games.
The first paragraph on the linked page is about games in general. Every definition of copyrightable matter I've ever seen also always mention that only the *expression* and not the underlying idea can ever be copyrightable. It's simply one of the fundamental properties of copyright. There's also a UK Court of Appeals ruling [edri.org] confirming that specifically for computer games.
Not sure how video games translate into that, and how that interacts with the DMCA, which covers... Digital... Media... Copyrights...
The DMCA is about the enforcement of copyright. Afaik, it does not extend the scope of what is copyrightable. Computer programs (including games) have been copyrightable since long before the DMCA came into existence.
Re:What's the problem? (Score:2, Interesting)
Three things:
1) So you are claiming you are an expert? I asked a question, that sort of was answered in the OP, but considering the source was the guy who wrote the rip-off of Tetris, I was wondering if his summary was accurate.
2) If a larger company did something like this, people would react differently, I suspect.
3) I love people like you, mouthing off on the internet, saying someone is a total retard because they may not understand the ins and outs of "IP protections". I'm not a programmer. I don't know about IP laws because I don't create (or in this case, ripoff) "art". I hope you feel good about yourself, you smug asshole.
Re:Instead of whining educate yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
If you could copyright game play, I'd imagine the guys that wrote Wolfenstien3d would have more money than God right now.
Even without copyright on gameplay, John Carmack managed to get pretty close to that given that he has his own aerospace company [slashdot.org] :)
BitBlocks (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey, I'm on the same boat. I also made a really awesome game of falling 4th order polyominoes (tetris style game) called BitBlocks. It was wildly successful, had much better ratings than even the official Tetris game by EA. My game was on the Android Market for 3 months, and became one of the top 5 games for the Android. On March 9th it got removed from the Android Market.
Your options are limited. You can't fight The Tetris Company because you can't afford the lawyer expenses. If you did have the money to fight The Tetris Company, you would surely win in court, but the court victory would be a loss for The Tetris Company as well as you because it would mean The Tetris Company no longer has any authority to stop people from making falling block games and there would be a flood of falling block games on the market, perhaps some even better than your game. (See Lotus vs Borland, in the end Borland won, but Lotus and Borland both lost when Microsoft came out with Excel)
What The Tetris Company is doing is anti-competitive. Under The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, monopolizing a trade using anti-competitive practices is a felony punishable by up to $10,000,000 fine and three year jail sentence. According to DOJ web site:
The Sherman Act also makes it a crime to monopolize any part of interstate commerce. An unlawful monopoly exists when only one firm controls the market for a product or service, and it has obtained that market power, not because its product or service is superior to others, but by suppressing competition with anticompetitive conduct.
(http://www.justice.gov/atr/laws.htm) -- that paragraph entirely describes what The Tetris Company is doing with falling block games.
I don't know if the DOJ will care or even lift a finger, but it's worth a try and if people on slashdot can create a big enough wave perhaps they will be swayed to investigate The Tetris Company. You can report antitrust concern here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/contact/newcase.htm [justice.gov]
So I urge all slashdotters to file a complaint with the Department of Justice. Show you care about tetris, file a complaint against The Tetris Company! It's time we put an end to their monopoly.
Re:Falling Blocks is still available (Score:2, Interesting)
unflagged (Score:4, Interesting)
But based on my experience with Youtube (i.e. Google), they just ignore counter-claims
I've been able to get a Tetris-related video [youtube.com] restored on a counter-notice. It took significantly longer than the federally mandated 14 business days, and it took a follow-up e-mail to copyright at youtube.com, but at least it's back up.
Re:shame (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Cause I just searched for it, found it, and downloaded it on my new Nexus One.
Re:17 USC 512(g) (Score:3, Interesting)
The service provider isn't required to put the material back up. Rather, they lose their immunity to lawsuits from the counter-claimant if the don't put the material back up subject to the counter-notice provisions. So you can't just sue the service provider for not putting the material back up; however, if you have a contract with the service provider to host that material, you could sue them for breach of contract if they don't put the material back up.
I'm not sure what kind of relationship people who host apps on Android Market have with Google, but I suspect that Google say that they can take down any app for any reason they want - in that case, it's difficult to see what a counter-claimant could sue Google for, unfortunately.
Re:How about replying? (Score:3, Interesting)
Because they didn't do that with cease and desist letters before the DMCA existed? The threat of legal action on frivolous claims has always been a severe deterrent, even when the receiving party knows they have no merit. The reality is that the little guy can seldom even afford to win a lawsuit, much less lose it.
That said, I like the DMCA, at least as far as the takedown process is concerned. The problem is you have to understand it has little to do with the copyright holder and the person the notice is sent against. They file a takedown notice so you file a notice of "we coo', we coo'." The host (Google in this case) has immunity from whatever happens between you two, and it proceeds from there exactly as if the DMCA didn't exist; ie, they can choose to file a lawsuit against you or not. It's pretty fair process to me, and one which provides an important ability for places like Google to offer to host anything of yours at all.
It does. For starters, the takedown notice is made under penalty of perjury. You're also allowed to file a lawsuit for damages against the party filing a false takedown notice, without needing to prove actual damages. A group called "Online Policy Group" won $125,000 from Diebold [onlinepolicy.org] in 2004 for false notices.
That said, the penalties are probably not high enough and the burden to acquire them too high. That should be addressed.