Play Meter

THE LAST WORD
'Pac-Man' vs.
Freedom of
the Press
By David Pierson
f the video game industry expects the general
public to gain a certain perspective ab~ut the
games' role in society, that the games do mdeed
serve a purpose, then it follows the industry must also
strive to keep itself in perspective .
I
But lately there's a clear indication that some manu-
facturers within the industry are losing that sense of
perspective, as is evidenced by the maddening rush
by one major game manufacturer to litigate against
anything that moves, in the name of copyright
infringement.
Now, we're not talking about illegal copy games
here. We're talking about copyright fanaticism which,
if allowed to run its course, would extend the copy-
right law to the point where it challenges not only our
collective sensibilities but our individual liberties as
well .
In a recent court action, Midway Manufacturing
enjoined Simon and Schuster from continuing to
publish its "How to Win at Pac-Man" book on the
grounds it infringed Midway's copyright. Prior to the
court challenge, a Midway spokesman said the court
case would probably be an interesting test to see
which right is greater-copyrights or the public's
right to a free press.
Now Midway's headstrong insistence to protect its
"rights" in this area raises serious questions about our
rights . And our rights aren't proprietary, like
Midway' s, but rather inalienable! Proprietary rights
may be enlarged upon or diminished by an act of
Congress, but inalienable rights are hardly negotiable.
And no governing body, whether it be King George
of England or the Copyright Congress of 1976, can
assign away any portion of those rights without
encountering the wrath of the people.
Now Midway says the 1976 Copyright Congress has
assigned away a part of our inalienable rights to it, that
our freedom to unbiased information is lesser than its
newly expanded proprietary rights. Perhaps the com-
pany has been carried away by its own gamesmanship
and really believes that, like the finger game , Paper
covers Rock . Perhaps encouraged by its series of
copyright victories in other areas, Midway has come
to think the rights of a cartoon character like Pac-Man
are indeed greater than the rights of living, breathing
human beings.
If that's the case, then truly Midway has lost its
perspective.
Does Midway really believe that, as a copyright
holder, it is entitled to royalties and / or final approval
on derivative works such as "How to Beat Pac-Man "
boo ks?
If so, then consider that Mad magazine recently
feat u red a Pac-Man with teeth on its cover. No doubt
Mad sold a lot of copies of its magazine because of the
image of Pac-Man on the cover. I, for one , now
publicly confess I wouldn't have bought that particu-
lar issue of Mad magazine had it not been for the
image of Pac-Man on the cover. I had to see what
t hose guys at Mad had to say about Pac-Man .
Does Midway have actionable cause to demand
royalty payments from Mad magazine for the use of
t hat character? O r, better yet, does Midway think it
h as the right to stop the distribution of that magazine
as well, because it depicts the Pac-Man in a less than
"acceptable" manner?
W h ere does one draw the line between copyright
and free press? Or are we to wait for Midway to define
that for us?
Following Midway's cue, doesn't every major
motion picture and television studio in the country
have equally due cause to sue Mad magazine for
runni ng cartoon satires of their motion pictures and ,
thus p rofiting from other people's proprietary rights?
Might we also assume that, according to Midway's
own logic, movie and literary reviewers will now have
to seek approval of the copyright holders before they
can publicize their criticisms and tell us which books
and movies are worth the price. When we reach that
point, will any criticism still be worthwhile?
If Midway Manufacturing insists on pursuing its
case to its logical conclusion, it may find out exactly
how easily Scissors cuts Paper. It may also find that it
would have been better for the company to have
reconsidered some of these latest copyright sorties.
By overstating its proprietary rights, it may call into
question at a later date some of the copyright claims it
has already hammered out in the courts. How many
of t hose cases are suspect as well?
It's all a matter of perspective.
Is someone's copyrights of greater importance than
our national security?
If not, then doesn't it seem slightly incongruous
that the United States government couldn ' t stop the
publication of a magazine article that explained
exactly how to build an atom bomb; yet the Midwa y
Manufacturing Company, invoking what it sees as its
copyrights, was able to enjoin a book publisher from
explaining exactly how to beat Pac· Man?
Where is our perspective?
Where are our rights?
•
. '