This journal article is a profile of the Modifying or “Mod” Community who use existing video game engines as the framework to create video games of their own. It focuses on Mario Orsini who with his team of 15 is developing a Mod called “Orbit Wars.”

It becomes germane to the subject of Video Game Copyright issues because the Mod Community itself is a bit of an oddity in the context of a Video Game Industry laden with myriads of complex copyright and patent laws. When a video game is created, it is programmed in two fundamental parts, the engine, which is the part that defines the physics of the gameplay itself, and then there is what the author refers to as the “aesthetic package” which defines the look and theme of the characters and visual effects. Modders take the engine from an existing game and create an aesthetic package of their own. In essence, they create a derivative work, the kind in which one conventionally thinking, might believe to be under fire from waves of lawsuits. As this article demonstrates, not only is that premise not true, but the situation is quite the opposite. Several examples are cited which illustrate the encouragement of the modded video games. It becomes clear that the Mod Community is looked upon by the industry as a way to seek new talent and embrace innovation.

The aim of the article seems to be in its illustration of benefits the Mod Community provides for both Modder and Game Maker. It does this by alluding to situations such as Id Software’s “Quake” line, which was the first game to include a set of developer’s tools with the game. They also cited the popular Mod “Counterstrike” which was a created with the engine of a game called “Half-Life.” Counterstrike’s popularity grew so much among the online Mod Community, that Sierra Entertainment, who published the original Half-Life, picked it up and sold it commercially. It would go on to sell “at least 1 million units.” These are effective and well-known examples that support the argument. Ultimately, it may be a way to show the Mod Community as a shinning example of the ideal relationship that could exist between Game Maker and Consumer. The context of this relationship entails one of mutual respect where the creative aspect of the game comes from both ends. It also demonstrates that the knee-jerk reaction to protect the content of the software can often end up hurting the product because it shuts it off from the community of people that support it through sales and allegiance.

Argued before the 9^th Circuit Court in 1992, this case was Nintendo’s attempt to stop Galoob’s production of the “Game Genie.” The device in dispute attached to standard Nintendo cartridges, which allowed users to input various special codes to perform “cheats” and alter the physics in the games they owned. Nintendo argued that the device created unauthorized derivative works, Galoob stood solidly behind the fair use defense.

The arguments presented some interesting perspectives on the extent of exactly what constitutes a derivative work, and also how far fair use defenses can go. Nintendo’s arguments imply that Galoob’s device unlawfully authorizes users to use copyrighted works in spite of the fact that it does not violate copyright law. This method of argument however was unfruitful considering that the precedence set by the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. case unambiguously established that simply providing the means to commit a type of infringement does not constitute infringement in itself. What further invalidated the argument was the fact that the Game Genie did not even encourage any infringing activities in that the purchase of a legal copy of the game was required to use it with the device. Of the four factors, which determine fair use, the effect on the potential market was what came into play. Since it did no apparent harm to the potential market, the Court was not receptive.

This distinction is very important to the idea of Video Game Copyright Issues because it give a definitive boundary to what we as consumers are physically allowed to do with software that we purchase. This is a case that goes beyond the arguments of copy protected source codes and piracy. With lawsuits like this, Game Makers attempted to exercise control over the products that they sell beyond the point where ownership has transferred to the consumer regardless of if it affected their market. Did it become an argument about the moral rights of the Game Maker to maintain quality of their own brand? Perhaps such an argument would have held more water. However, if the Game Genie case had gone Nintendo’s way, it may have set precedence for more lawsuits of the same nature which may have further pushed the boundaries of DRM technology for software and hardware. Such actions would not be to the benefit of the consumer, and would have only solidified a monopolistic control on not only sale and distribution, but on the very existence of the software itself.