Play Meter

,... ······
55
••SSS¥55135 IS IS 5 55
5555155
S¥55
••
THE LAST WORD
The song doesn't remain the same
So why should the
game~
By David Pierson
I
n a recent issue of Play Meter (J u ly 15, page 80), an
operator in Wichita, Kan., Ronnie Cazel, brought up an
interesting point which should be seriously considered
when talking about speed-up kit~ and their alleged infringe-
ment of video game copyrights.
Cazel said: "It's hard to mention copyright to an
operator because he really doesn't understand (it) . He
understands it on music, that he can't change (it). But it also
seems that with music a guy doesn't always play it the same
way as it was originally written."
Mr. Cazel is right. For instance, the song "This Guy' s in
love With You" changes to "This Girl's in love With You"
when a woman sings the song. And that isn't a copyright
offense. That doesn't compromise t h e so n gwriter's creation.
And her changing the lyrics-even to the point of changing
the title itself-is not construed as violating the sanctity of the
songwriter's creation .
Why? Because the copyrig h t owner is being com-
pensated for his creation. The main purpose of copyrights is
to allow "t h e progress of science and useful arts," and that's
done "by securing for limited times to authors and inventors
exclusive rights to their respective writings and discoveries. "
Now the copyright owner' s "exclusive rights" do not
mean he can dictate who can perform his songs or how they
must be performed. Thus, a songwriter can cringe when he
hears a terrible singer do a perfectly horrible adaptation of
one of his songs. But all he can do is cringe. legally, he cannot
stop the damn singer from singing the song.
By the same token , it can be argued that an operator who
buys a legitimate game can make whatever adaptations (i.e.
modifications) he deems necessary to promote "the
progress" of that creation in the marketplace. But at least one
major video games manufacturer has been reportedly going
around the country seizing original licensed games from
operators whose only "sin" was that they modified the games
with speed-up kits so that the games would remain
commercially viable .
Now , considering the ground swell of operator
sentiment in favor of speed-up kits , it's nonsensical that a
major video game manufacturer who depends largely upon
the continued goodwill of its customers would pursue such a
nebulous cause. But, if the reports are true, one
manufacturer in particular is doing exactly that with
considerable success and appare ntly minimal backlash.
Why? Those who have been hit by these speed-up kit
raids claim the video games giant is taking advantage of
woefully disorganized operators. They say operators should
be well-organized, especially since many of these operators
have always made it a practice to buy only legal copyrighted
games. But they point out no single operator has the financial
wherewithal to stand toe-to-toe with the manufacturing
giant on this issue .
Now, since a fair determination of the speed-up kit issue
is in the best interests of the industry, and since a fair
disposition of the issue can hardly be determined if only one
side has the resources and the initiative to pursue the cause,
what is the single operator to do? It is a dilemma. And one
doesn't like to think a manufacturer within the industry
would try to squeeze his operators / buyers dry. But what's to
stop a manufacturer who starts looking upon his
operators/buyers as so many sheep that are waiting to be
fleeced?
Sadly , there's no national operators ' association
representing the interests of amusement game operators ;
for, if there were, that association would surely take up such a
battle.
So the potential for operator fleecing is possible because
of the disorganization of operators nationwide.
It is noteworthy that most video game manufacturers,
with the possible exception of the aforementioned copyright
extremist, have taken the position of looking the other way
when it comes to speed-up kits and how they might infringe
on their video game copyrights. The reluctance of other
manufacturers to take part in such a squeeze play can be
construed as those manufacturers' belief that the well-being
of operators is essential to the continued prosperity of
rna n uf actu rers.
It was probably stated best by a distributor , Bally
Advance of South San Francisco, which , in a recent
advertisement to the trade , stated: "To be successful, we
must rna ke our customers successful." Those are good words
that , if the reports of the speed-up kit seizures are true , the
avenging copyright extremist should take to heart.
Now, the position of a manufacturer who would try to
squeeze every last advantage out of his buyers by pressing the
issue on a very dubious interpretation of the copyright law, is
no different from that of the performing rights societies-
ASCAP, SESAC, and BMI-which adopted an operator-be-
damned attitude when it came to their copyrights. The
performing rights societies could get away with their hard-
line stance because they really didn ' t depend on the jukebox
operators for their continued well-being. But can a video
game manufacturer , no matter how big, adopt such an
attitude about his customer base? Hardly . Unless such a
manufacturer has intentions of dominating the retail (i.e.
operating) business as well and seeks to create his monopoly
by bankrupting all his potential competition.
So, Mr . Cazel, you're right. Operators do not understand
copyrights. But unless they are represented by leaders who
understand their needs and those of the whole coin-op
amusement industry, the copyright law could well be defined
by the appeals of well-financed monopolists t:J federal
judges who haven't the slightest understanding (.:>r interest)
in the coin operated amusement industry.
SSISI'SSSSSSISISSSSSSSSSCSSSSSSSS SSSSSSSSSSSSSSISSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS¥5
94
PLAY METER. November 1, 1982