The Neon Peon wrote:The problem with copyright issues is not whether you were right or wrong. My high school had to change its logo this year because another one several states away was using the exact same one and threatening to sure. Although our school was founded long before theirs, the administrators found it was easier to change the logo everywhere (that means every form, calendar, banner, all the signs around the school.... everything really.) just because they found it was less expensive to do that than pay a lawyer to defend their case.
So, in a way, it is just whether you want to go through the whole legal process, lose a lot of money to pay a lawyer just so you can keep doing what you have always been doing, or inconvenience yourself slightly for a month or two until the maps are revamped? What would any of you do in this situation?
This is the wrong way to do things. Yes, good legal advice can be costly and even the best lawyers will tell you its risky, but you can't go around treating your business like a sideline project, or your customers will realize they are just a sideline project to you.
My alma maeter has a similar issue to your high school. Another school several states away has the same name. My school, the one with the deeper pockets, sent them a letter of infringement. They sent back a "go pound sand, and here's why" letter. Know what happened. Nothing!
Giving up in this context is admitting you were wrong. It's a "successful defense" by the other side, and they can use that in future claims. You don't want to do it lightly unless your sure there is no value to what your giving up.
Let me explain how this should have been handled.
1) Methodical changes to remove resemblance to the continental risk map could be made, like negativising in black and white, changing the perspective, putting cosmic/satanic signs on it and stuff (in US, if the issue is copyright, there is a parody exception). Sure, change the dice from red / yellow to green / white (who cares). Don't change the words "Attack", "Conquer", "Card". You don't want to validate those claims of ownership, which are pretty weak.
2) Then you send this letter: "Dear X: Thank you for bringing to our attention XYZ. We do not think your assertions are accurate. Legal mumbo jumbo. Without admitting your rights to XYZ, we have altered our content to minimize the possibility of confusion, and to ensure there is no infringement of your property rights. We call you your attention ABC. We own ABC. We are aware that your <<competing game>> uses ABC. We advice you to cease and desist. Go pound sand."
3) (You hire a qualified lawyer to fill in the legal mumbo jumbo part before you send it.)
4) You adopt a long term strategy to wean the site off of Classic, so you can kill it in the future if you want to.
[Begin Unfounded Speculation]
Now that I read twill's post, I'm going to suggest that maybe the reason we had this change is b/c someone who just had their version of a RISK game pulled out from under their feed to to an actual cease and desist letter from Hasbro, is looking to buy up such a game, and has approached our dear Mr. Lackattack with an officer, including a confidentiality clause. Otherwise there is no reason they are being so hush-hush. Also, when Mr. Googley-Money-Bags-Whoever cashes out the current owner, it won't matter how many of the current users have been pissed off and won't renew - that's why they call it and exit strategy.
[End Speculation]
Why was there no warning as to such a drastic change? Would it have been so bad? I understand copyright infringement and the litigation that would result it huge losses for CC... but I can almost imagine this has been an ongoing issue for the moderators for some time. I wonder where is the loyalty to the customers 
... ok, premium players to not offer a warning? Thanks moderators for the heads up... I feel so appreciated! 
) 
