(12-23-2015, 10:14 PM)TomGuycott Wrote: Let's put this into an analogy that YOU might be able to understand... From what I understand, you like to make games in your spare time, yes? Even if you don't, pretend that you do just for this argument.
A fan of your work takes your engine without your consent and begins to make small changes to it to better suit ideas that they have, while still being more or less recognizable as your work. However, it is mostly harmless, it is not sold for money, but it eventually gets attention and a following.
Now jump ahead years later. The person who used to edit your engine now releases a game that seems derivative of your engine, changing things like the graphics and sound, but the core gameplay is a derivative. People are now turning their attention to this new product and not your work.
Would you say that's still cut and dry? Or are you going to change your mind because it is happening to you?
You're making a morality argument, not a legal one. I don't really think there's an analogy that will appropriately fit the situation because the laws just aren't adequately suited to handling digital copyright and trademark, even the ones that supposedly handle that...
Essentially there isn't a law against creating an original game after learning how somebody made a commercial game, just like there isn't anything wrong with taking apart a book to figure out how binding works and then opening a printing press (however you can copyright specific lines of code, and you can patent specific game mechanics... I'm not sure how long you can monopolize a game concept for, though). The real problem the P:M team will run into is a costly legal battle they can't afford... even if they're in the right, they'd be bankrupted by the costs associated with proving that.