[Official] Classic Revamp [Quenched]

by **Time4Rugby** on Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:56 am

This map is not "classic" A Classic map should have territories not cities for one thing, and second at least pick cities in the the territories. To get rid of Greenland, Madagascar, Mongolia and Irkutsk doesn't do justice to the game i love to play. Why did conquer club get rid of the territory style of the classic map.

by **natty dread** on Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:26 am

Time4Rugby wrote:Why did conquer club get rid of the territory style of the classic map.

Because of copyright reasons.

by **zeros** on Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:06 pm

What a gigantic improvement over "Classic Shapes" and "Classic Art" this is! (Both of which were very poor imitations of the world!).

Whilst not wishing to get into the politics of the difficulties Conquer Club had with the original manufacturers of 'Risk', CC seems the ONLY site that found using a map of the world a problem. As an aside, I cannot understand how anyone or any company can effectively own copyright of a Mercator projection of the planet we live upon. Furthermore, the argument that the original game's borders were contentious is a very hollow one; since any designer could choose to use different borders - straight lines for instance (or pretty well ANYTHING that was not a direct copy of said original).

It is almost a year since I played. I tolerated the irritation of not having a 'proper' world map... for a while. Then, with ever growing annoyance, I found another site that uses a proper world view and guess what? -Bye bye Conquer Club!

Tonight, for some inexplicable reason (perhaps simply a result of my inquisitive nature?), I thought I'd revisit my old friend: Conquer Club; before turning in for the night.

And this revelation of a proper map is the biggest single factor that I may now return. That said, I will be even more tempted if you put some borders in, instead of the rather crummy 'link-lines'. Just use straight lines for the borders of territories if you have to (even if no other site does).

However, I would like to express my thanks for those responsible for getting this very necessary 'act' together, to get a proper map: the most important, most obviously lacking aspect of Conquer Club.

by **natty dread** on Mon Feb 08, 2010 10:16 pm

There is a reason CC is noticed by Hasbro while other sites are not: CC is by far the biggest online "world domination game" site. The business is good enough that it makes Hasbro see CC as competition.

Thus any attempts to avoid copyright infringements and possible legal action from Hasbro are only sensible. I'm not exactly sure if CC was actually contacted by Hasbro and if they asked the map to be taken down, or if it was merely a precaution, but either way it is an act of preservation.

Welcome back to CC though.

by **zeros** on Tue Feb 09, 2010 12:56 am

Thankyou for such a quick response Natty. -I am impressed. And I appreciate the concerns over copyright.

I also understand copyright laws reasonably well.

Obviously a map of the world is not a problem, so we can therefore remove that from any meaningful discussion. Furthermore, actual coastlines and real borders of real countries are also beyond the reach of copyright law, unless such mapping can be shown to be a direct copy (as in 'photograph', 'photocopy', 'digital rip off' etc.) and used without the owner's consent. Equally; established boundaries of real continents may be represented by anyone, so long as the source of original material is not replicated without permission.

To put it simply: Hasbro owns copyright of its own exact design and ONLY that! And taking successful legal action against another party for infringement of copyright would require them to demonstrate that THEIR specific design - and not that of my encyclopaedia (or any other source) - had been copied.

If I draw a map of the world, together with its continents and countries but not copied directly from someone else's work; I have every right to publish my work, (to which I own copyright) and may grant reproduction of it to whomever I choose. And I can use the names of real countries and real continents in geographically accurate regions to describe such regions if I so choose without asking anyone's permission. (Since none of these distinctions are 'owned' by anyone). And, for what it's worth; I can use my own paint and canvas to produce a painting similar to one of Leonardo's and call it "The Lona Misa", so long as I do not attempt to pass it off as the original it is based upon.

We are therefore left with the rules of game-play - and NOT ANY representation of the real world and its regions (save that of Hasbro's actual design) - as the only contentious possibility...

Hasbro may be able to defend the 'concept' of the battles being decided with attacking and defending dice in the manner commonly used (presumably already without specific permission), as their 'intellectual property'. They may also be able to defend the game-specific deployment of forces and their subsequent movement and redeployment. They may even be able to defend the 'idea' that the game is decided when the playing area is completely dominated by one player.

But I have my doubts on this too...

Virtually any variation on original rules, automatically steps out of the realm of copyright. And the idea of a winner being decided by domination of a playing area is common to the nature of humans and ants alike; common to the concept of real warfare and chess; and common to the notion of six being greater than one. (-Just who gave them permission to use dice anyway?!)

Conquer Club already stands safely outside the bounds of copyright, since it is essentially a conceptualization of collective gaming with significant variation and choices for its participants - albeit based on some distant, physical world ancestor.

By analogy, Sony's Playstation has a game called Gran Turismo. It attempts to represent real world motor racing with 'real' cars and in some cases, 'real' circuits. It is the attempt to replicate these real cars and real circuits which constitutes the only need for Sony to get permission for 'reproduction'. They do not need to ask anyone's permission to invent their own circuit or their own 'four-wheeled vehicle', in spite of the fact that long ago, someone was the first to invent a road which came back on itself and someone else came up with the idea of a vehicle with four wheels...

Furthermore, no aspect of Conquer Club is a board game. And it can NEVER BE a board game. - In a very literal sense!

To sum up: Hasbro's copyright is necessarily design specific, no matter how much they'd prefer others not to 'reinvent' their idea...

by **natty dread** on Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:44 am

Well hey, if you think you can manage to convince the admin of that, go ahead and try... I see little chance though, as obviously, CC is a business for him, it's how he feeds his family, so of course if there's even a chance that taking this action would enable Hasbro to close his business (and even a lawsuit by them could be harmful to the site: Hasbro has lots of money to hire lawyers for a legal battle, CC not so much) then it's no wonder he's playing it safe.

by **zeros** on Tue Feb 09, 2010 1:36 pm

Yes Natty: I very much appreciate that.

However, these fears are largely unfounded. Conquer Club is very much a reality and Hasbro have been unable to do anything about it for the very reasons I have presented. Indeed, any lawyer worth his salt would advise them of the simple legal position: that unless copyright is breached (as outlined in my previous posting) there is no action that they can take! Any such action would be doomed and Hasbro would pick up the total bill, not just a part of it. There simply has not been a breach of copyright. Simple. The end!

I am certain that this is why they have not already taken any action. -They know they cannot possibly win it unless a direct copy of their design is (stupidly) used.

In any case, the success of CC is clearly not reliant upon a replica 'board'. But this does not affect Conquer Club's right to publish its own design, complete with proper borders instead of tacky 'link-lines'.

P.S. Do you happen to know who it is that is truly in charge of Conquer Club? I mean; who is it that actually owns this fantastic thing? I get the impression you know something.

Meantime, please accept my thanks for your responses and guidance. Cheers.

by **natty dread** on Tue Feb 09, 2010 2:05 pm

P.S. Do you happen to know who it is that is truly in charge of Conquer Club? I mean; who is it that actually owns this fantastic thing? I get the impression you know something.

lackattack

by **zeros** on Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:58 pm

Thankyou very much Natty.

by **Doc_Brown** on Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:18 pm

zeros wrote:However, these fears are largely unfounded. Conquer Club is very much a reality and Hasbro have been unable to do anything about it for the very reasons I have presented. Indeed, any lawyer worth his salt would advise them of the simple legal position: that unless copyright is breached (as outlined in my previous posting) there is no action that they can take! Any such action would be doomed and Hasbro would pick up the total bill, not just a part of it.

Unfortunately that isn't the case in the US legal system. We don't have a "loser pays" clause where legal expenses are concerned. There have been various attempts to push this through, but lawyers form a pretty extensive lobbying group here, and there would be a lot fewer lawsuits filed if tort reform were ever to go through. It is possible to counter-sue for legal expenses, however, a big corporation like Hasbro has a big team of high-power lawyers already on the payroll. In the US legal system they could easily keep filing motions, briefs, and counter-motions. The goal in such a situation is not to get to trial. What they try to do is drag the case on as long as possible and force the target (lackattack in this case) to continue spending money on his lawyer week after week. In almost every case, the target of the lawsuit agrees to settle out of court rather than spend millions taking it to trial with no guarantee of recompense.

Now, lackattack is Canadian, so I'm not sure how that would affect things, since Hasbro is in the US. My guess would be that lack did talk to a lawyer at some point just to find out what he could and couldn't do. It's likely on their advice that the various terminology, as well as the map, from the original game is not to be found in anything official created on the site. He probably could win the lawsuit, and he might even manage to keep said lawsuit in a jurisdiction that would be more favorable than the US, but the changes he's made do not adversely affect the playability of the site, and this way there is no risk of future legal problems.

As an aside, I believe Hasbro did come out with a computer version of Risk at some point, and they might be able to make an argument that this site was in competition with that game. That may actually be one reason why we won't see AI-controlled opponents on this site.

by **natty dread** on Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:26 am

Hasbro was also planning their own online risk site... I don't know if they're still going through with it, but I'm worried that they'll see CC as competition if they do.

by **jiminski** on Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:13 pm

natty_dread wrote:Hasbro was also planning their own online risk site... I don't know if they're still going through with it, but I'm worried that they'll see CC as competition if they do.

there was an official site years ago which you could connect to if you had the CD (the swanky graphics of little soldiers shooting each other and so on) .. but i could never actually make it work.

by **natty dread** on Wed Feb 10, 2010 7:35 pm

No, that's not the one I mean... I think they were actually planning a site similar to CC.

by **zeros** on Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:30 pm

Interesting.

Special thanks to Doc Brown for clarifying the legal system in the USA.

I must admit, I was not certain of the legal system there, and based my argument on the British legal system, in the expectation that it was similar.

I must express incredulity that such a system is allowed to continue where, rather like this game we like so much; the guy who starts stronger almost always crushes his opponent. One might argue that in warfare, it is only to be expected - and I'd agree. But to have a legal system that, at least in principle, has been established through some form of moral code (rather than a desire to actually destroy one's opponent, regardless of rights and wrongs, surely?); this obvious lack of 'justness' must fly in the face of its purported values!

That said, I see exactly why the legal profession want to keep it the way it is. - No surprise there but it's 'morality' is so obviously flawed. How hypocritical can it get?!!

I'm disgusted that my idealised view is so far from reality. The system is basically saying that the wealthiest person is nearly always 'right'.

-You've shattered my illusions ........ ](*,)

by **saaimen** on Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:41 pm

That's not entirely true.

Cases like this one aren't just about what's right and what's wrong. There's no obvious justice or injustice going on here. The laws can't foresee every given situation, they were probably not thinking "Oh hey what if someone invents a board game based on a world map, and then later on a website expands the idea using different maps and terminology, are they breaking copyright laws or not? We should include that clause."
In these sort of 50-50 situations, the better lawyer may indeed find the tiny detail that invalidates the other's argument. But that doesn't mean the whole law system is flawed, or that any lawyer is immoral.

by **MrBenn** on Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:14 pm

It doesn;t matter which legal system you're referring to... If you're unable to afford the costs of a court case in the first place, then you'll never get the ability to win those costs back...

Anyway, let's try and keep discussion to the map, rather than further speculation about the whats and wherefores surrounding the reason for change... the only person who has those answers keeps his cards tucked inside his shell...

by **Robinette** on Fri Feb 19, 2010 12:37 am

MrBenn wrote:It doesn;t matter which legal system you're referring to... If you're unable to afford the costs of a court case in the first place, then you'll never get the ability to win those costs back...

Anyway, let's try and keep discussion to the map, rather than further speculation about the whats and wherefores surrounding the reason for change... the only person who has those answers keeps his cards tucked inside his shell...

by **Lionz** on Mon Mar 08, 2010 6:38 am

RIP Classic Art?

by **00iCon** on Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:18 am

why didn't they put pictures in classic art anyway?

by **JoseFlang** on Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:04 am

whats up with manila it dosen't correspond to the original game does it ?

by **the.killing.44** on Sun Sep 12, 2010 10:13 am

Japan.

by **Victor Sullivan** on Tue Sep 14, 2010 12:24 am

Mongolia.

by **Demonaire** on Tue May 17, 2011 1:17 pm

It´s more realistic with the country´s borders, instead capitals.

by **ManBungalow** on Tue May 17, 2011 1:36 pm

Demonaire wrote:It´s more realistic with the country´s borders, instead capitals.

As I understand it, the key to making Classic sufficiently different to the board game, Risk, was to use those capitals and attack routes instead of countries and borders, thus dodging the various copyright restrictions.