Hasbro shuts down Cockatrice

[Onslaught]

95% of the Vintage I play is on Cockatrice, super sad news. Does MWS still exist?

[orgcandman]

Hasbro doesn't just have the copyright to the cards though (their meaning, likeness, etc).  they also have a copyright to the GAME.  So if you were using a deck of bicycle cards to play magic, then you are making an illegitimate copy of their intellectual property.  Tapping for mana, tapping to attack, etc. are all parts of their copyrighted game.  If you tap an ace of spades or a tarmgoyf to do the same thing in an identical copy of a Magic:the Gathering game, then it is copyright infringement.  Cockatrice just gave people the playing cards in a format designed specifically to copy the functions of the game - the functions, not the cards themselves, are the bigger issue.  It's copying the game that WotC does and should have issue with.

It doesn't work that way. You cannot copyright rules or methods in the US. I think the EU is similar.

[Daenyth]

Game rules cannot be copyrighted in the US

[ramrodjon]

This is unfortunate.  I imagine the sale of gasoline, automobiles, Sharpie markers and Basic Plains will sky-rocket as a result, but not so much actual MTG cards.

[tito del monte]

A petition has been started by someone over on the MTG Salvation forums. I'm not going to say it's the most cogently argued thing out there, has any solid legal basis or indeed has a huge chance of stopping Hasbro defending their trademarks (which they need to do keep them valid), BUT just getting a solid number of people in one place saying "this sucks" to show to the powers that be I think is a useful action.

Feel free to sign up:
https://www.change.org/petitions/hasbro-drop-charges-against-cockatrice#

Apparently there is also an alternative server that appears to be working:
play.woogerworks.com

I've not tried it yet but I'm going to give it a whirl later. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

Lawyers of TMD, is there a good reason not to simply turn this back on Hasbro's lawyer? The only reason this particular suit is even modestly effective is because it's a conglomerate suing an individual. Their case is frivolous so they counted on the asymmetry in the impact of the cost of litigating this to get Brucke to agree to unnecessary things. If their lawyer was morally okay with that, why is it not appropriate to use our similarly disproportionate investment tying said lawyer up with motions to disbar them?

I'm not sure why we bother with petitions when we can instead simply instill a "fear of Anonymous." Make the lawyers themselves think twice before acting on behalf of a conglomerate client against an individual.

[tito del monte]

I must say I what I find partly so baffling about this, is that it is horrendous PR - and that time and time again WOTC manages to drop these clangers and not learn from them: think Player Rewards, Planeswalker Points etc etc.

You would have though that if they choosing to take on Cockatrice now, it is because they things that it offers, which MTGO doesn't, are about to be added to MGTO. If they were as good at PR as they are at litigating, today really would have been the day to announce, for example, Mac support for MTGO and their exact plans for releasing Power. But no... seems so half-arsed... :/

Lawyers: How much is this just necessary huffing and puffing to show they still care about their trademarks? How serious would you say the intent is to shutdown Cockatrice?

[TheWhiteDragon]

Game rules cannot be copyrighted in the US

So you mean I can make a "Monopoly" board with different names and different colors (like the parody versions), change the names of chance/community chest, make my own little metal player tokens, and have the exact same rules and functionality, market it as my own creation, get rich, and pay Hasbro $0?

[brianpk80]

Lawyers of TMD, is there a good reason not to simply turn this back on Hasbro's lawyer?

If I understand correctly, the recipient of the cease & desist letter lives in Germany.  There are, at least in theory, remedies in states for abuse of process / wrongful use of civil proceedings as well as sanctions and potential disciplinary action against attorneys bringing frivolous suits, but here it appears nothing has been filed (only a letter sent) and I have no idea how the legal system works in Germany. 

Their case is frivolous so they counted on the asymmetry in the impact of the cost of litigating this to get Brucke to agree to unnecessary things. If their lawyer was morally okay with that, why is it not appropriate to use our similarly disproportionate investment tying said lawyer up with motions to disbar them?

Disbarment would be a far too extreme sanction for writing a tenuous C&D letter at the request of a client.  But yes, like many accepted norms, it is morally questionable.  Hasbro wasn't necessarily planning on litigating even if the letter failed.  It was most likely projected that the recipient would fold easily. 

Make the lawyers themselves think twice before acting on behalf of a conglomerate client against an individual.

I appreciate the pro-underdog spirit but lawyers generally do what their clients want them to do.  The client here is far more blameworthy on a moral level. 

[hitman]

I'm not sure I understand what the complaints are about.  It seems to me that Cockatrice is actually in violation of Hasbro's copyright.  In what sense are they not copying MtG close enough to be considered violating the copyright.  The game is the same and the cards even have the graphics on them, unlike MWS.  The interface actually looks like MODO's.  Is this just a case of wanting to defend something you like or is there actually any substance to this disagreement?

I remember being shocked that MWS was left to exist unhassled back when I use to use it.  Cockatrice is even more similar to MtG.  I'm pretty sure most, if not all, people using Cockatrice consider what they do on there 'playing Magic'.  What's the difference between writing a book and having someone else distribute it for free and what Cockatrice is doing to Hasbro?

[hvndr3d y34r h3x]

What I want to know is if this is a case similar to the old emulator ones. Where people managed to assemble components in enough technically legal places to where they can't get it trouble because some one else "happened" to compile them into a completely free console with all available titles for free on their computer.
Cockatrice as a thing that keeps list and shuffles those lists and lets you put things in colored places seems fine to me. I mean, you could be using it it to play sheeps head or something completely legal. The question is if cockatrice was too direct and not round about enough to say, "everything was individually legal, it was some people just put it together to play mtg which is something I can't control!" Kind of like how if someone builds something illegal and buys all the completely legal parts at Home Depot it's not Home Depot's fault, which is probably something that's happened more than once.

If you don't have any legal experience and just fancy yourself a smart enough moral enough dude to weight in on this, please don't bother answering.

[AmbivalentDuck]

Their case is frivolous so they counted on the asymmetry in the impact of the cost of litigating this to get Brucke to agree to unnecessary things. If their lawyer was morally okay with that, why is it not appropriate to use our similarly disproportionate investment tying said lawyer up with motions to disbar them?

Disbarment would be a far too extreme sanction for writing a tenuous C&D letter at the request of a client.  But yes, like many accepted norms, it is morally questionable.  Hasbro wasn't necessarily planning on litigating even if the letter failed.  It was most likely projected that the recipient would fold easily. 

That's really the point: Brucke folded easily because even the initial cost of responding to the C&D is prohibitive for an individual.

I appreciate the pro-underdog spirit but lawyers generally do what their clients want them to do.  The client here is far more blameworthy on a moral level.

The fact that they do what their clients want them to has as much to do with likely recourse as other factors. The client can fire you or find different representation while the likelihood of ANY negative consequences following something like this are slim to none.

My argument is that if we simply ruin the lives of any lawyers who attempt to act on a corporation's behalf against an individual, it will rapidly become impossible to find representation willing to do it. Disbarment may be extreme, but the threat of a career lost is sufficient to force the lawyer to respond individually to each of several hundred separate motions to disbar them. That's time consuming and requires keeping track of each motion. Any motion that the lawyer loses track of and succeeds immediately ends their career. This also greatly increases the $$$ cost of litigating against an individual since the lawyer will want several months' pay up front to do it in anticipation of several months' defense of their career.

[Daenyth]

I'm not sure I understand what the complaints are about.  It seems to me that Cockatrice is actually in violation of Hasbro's copyright.  In what sense are they not copying MtG close enough to be considered violating the copyright.  The game is the same and the cards even have the graphics on them, unlike MWS.  The interface actually looks like MODO's.  Is this just a case of wanting to defend something you like or is there actually any substance to this disagreement?

I remember being shocked that MWS was left to exist unhassled back when I use to use it.  Cockatrice is even more similar to MtG.  I'm pretty sure most, if not all, people using Cockatrice consider what they do on there 'playing Magic'.  What's the difference between writing a book and having someone else distribute it for free and what Cockatrice is doing to Hasbro?

Those images were never distributed though. Even the links weren't distributed. The user generated a file containing links to the images that live on hasbro's servers, and all the software does is take that file with a list of links and download them.

[brianpk80]

My argument is that if we simply ruin the lives of any lawyers who attempt to act on a corporation's behalf against an individual, it will rapidly become impossible to find representation willing to do it. Disbarment may be extreme, but the threat of a career lost is sufficient to force the lawyer to respond individually to each of several hundred separate motions to disbar them. That's time consuming and requires keeping track of each motion. Any motion that the lawyer loses track of and succeeds immediately ends their career. This also greatly increases the $$$ cost of litigating against an individual since the lawyer will want several months' pay up front to do it in anticipation of several months' defense of their career.

It wouldn't work that way.  There are no "motions" to disbar an attorney; there would be complaints made to the disciplinary board in the state(s) in which the attorney is barred.  If the complaints had merit, the disciplinary board would investigate and initiate any punitive proceedings.  I doubt anything would come of it. 

It seems to me that Cockatrice is actually in violation of Hasbro's copyright.  In what sense are they not copying MtG close enough to be considered violating the copyright.  The game is the same and the cards even have the graphics on them, unlike MWS.  The interface actually looks like MODO's.  Is this just a case of wanting to defend something you like or is there actually any substance to this disagreement?

Game rules and mechanics can't be copyrighted.  A copyright protection is for the expression of a ideas in a fixed medium.  The art and images may be copyrighted but not the game of Magic itself.  The software of MODO may be copyrighted, but that doesn't mean that a program which does something similar is a copyright infringement.  A trademark identifies the origin of goods & services.  To prevail on infringement, Hasboro would have to demonstrate that Cockatrice is confusing customers by using the popularity of the mark "Magic: the Gathering" to trick people into buying/using their product or diluting the brand.  Not happening here.  Cockatrice doesn't even use the mark.  There are elements of the game Magic that are patented, but Cockatrice has not created a trading card game from scratch that mimics it.  MODO is not patented. 

So there is no basis for any claim against Cockatrice, bearing in mind that it's possible that German law differs.  If anything though, because Canada and European countries place more emphasis on privacy and individual dignities, it wouldn't surprise me if they have stronger safeguards against use of legal prowess to harass, shame, and intimidate.  I have a hard time believing that there's any real intent to file a baseless IP claim in a foreign court against a non-corporate defendant without deep pockets.  Cease & desist here is simply a cheap intimidation tactic. 

That's really the point: Brucke folded easily because even the initial cost of responding to the C&D is prohibitive for an individual.

Right.  I would probably advise him to do the same thing for his own sanity.  While there may be an initial instinct to fight back against the injustice, fighting embroils one in long term anxiety and costs that are often not justified by the end result.  I've seen a few hysterically tragic examples. 

[AmbivalentDuck]

Right.  I would probably advise him to do the same thing for his own sanity.  While there may be an initial instinct to fight back against the injustice, fighting embroils one in long term anxiety and costs that are often not justified by the end result.  I've seen a few hysterically tragic examples.

So if not disbarment, how do you create a similar asymmetry wherein collective action could be taken directly against the lawyer and those requesting the C&D without having to attack the MtG brand itself?

[Onslaught]

I'm still sorta in denial about this, I haven't played Vintage in a few weeks now and I'm having withdrawals...