Copyrightability Analysis Of Game Rules

While the game industry in China is developing rapidly,the means of infringement are also constantly changing,from the initial low-level theft of code and copying of art images to the high-level "skinning" of game rules such as skill settings,mission settings,game economic system and game maps to avoid external audiovisual elements.While game rights holders often use copyright law,which protects innovation and stimulates creativity,as a legal weapon to defend their interests,judicial practice has not responded well to the call for protection of game rules,and there is a disconnect between industry needs and judicial practice.This situation has fostered the trend of game plagiarism and suppressed the enthusiasm of original creators,affecting the benign development of the game industry.Therefore,this paper analyzes the copyrightability of game rules with a view to regulating the act of skinning and plagiarism,so as to contribute to the formation of a good innovative atmosphere in the game industry.The article mainly consists of an introductory part and three major chapters.The introductory part of the article introduces the phenomenon of skinning in the game industry and its impact on the development of the industry,and compares the views and jurisprudence of the theoretical and practical circles at home and abroad,so as to clarify the object of this article’s research.The first chapter of the article summarizes the controversy over the copyrightability of game rules protection into three aspects:whether game rules are functional in the sense that copyright does not protect them,the position of game rules in the narrow sense of thought and expression,and whether game rules are original.These three disputes reflect the copyrightability requirements of the non-functional principle,the dichotomy of idea and expression principle and the originality principle of copyright law,which are embedded in the three aspects of "within the field of literature,art and science","capable of being expressed in a certain form" and "originality" which constitutes a work.The second chapter of the article defines the rules of the game discussed in this article and,on this basis,analyzes the controversies raised in the first chapter in relation to each of the three elements of the composition of a work.Firstly,it emphasizes that game rules are different from rules,as they are the internal structure of a game,which can be divided into different categories according to the degree of abstraction,and defines the "game rules" under discussion as a system of game elements designed by game planners and indirectly presented on the game screen.Secondly,it is explored that the function played by game rules is essentially the information conveying function of symbols,which has the possibility of narrative,not the function excluded by copyright law,and thus belongs to the field of literature and art science.Thirdly,it is clarified that game rules are substance of expression and can therefore be capable of being expressed in a certain form.Finally,it is analyzed the creative space and the creative heights that can be reached by game rules which can meet the requirements of originality if they are the result of an original choice and arrangement,branded with individuality.After arguing that game rules have the possibility of being protected by copyright law,the third chapter of the article explores the specific path of copyright law to protect game rules in terms of both the scope of protection of game rules and the attribution of types of works.In terms of the scope of protection,it is suggested that the Altai’s abstraction-filtration-comparison test in the United States should be referred to for deconstruction and combined with the overall perception of the player community,and that the overall perception should be placed before abstraction to avoid the most crucial original arrangement in the game rules being excluded from the scope of protection.In terms of the attribution of work types,as the rules of the game still rely on the existing text and motion pictures as forms of expression to indirectly present,and do not produce new forms of expression,it is not appropriate to apply the underwriting clause,but should still be included in the existing work types and under the existing work types and appropriately strengthen the regulation.It is hoped that this article will provide strong theoretical support for the courts in adjudicating the infringement of skinning games and bring some help to the judicial development of game cases.