b1a0tShowtime: Trademark?tThe Ripperthps1f2c11SHOWTIME: TRADEMARK BELONGING TO WHOM?
f1c12        by The Ripper/Endzeit


c13I believe the Showtime affair has been
one of the quarrels that has risen one
of the most huge debates in the recent
scenistory.
To  tell  the  truth  it  seems almost
everybody's opinion was (and still is)
pro  Darkage's work, against Ram Jam's
attempt  to stop Modem'n'Kaos' crew to
release this popular scenechart.
Bytheway,  the  problem  is that noone
seems  to  be  able to explain WHY Ram
Jam  has  no  rights  anymore over the
name,  code  and the rest of Showtime,
and  most  of  the sceners only try to
demonstrate their moral disagreement.

c12Law,  anyway,  has  nothing to do with
Morality.   Luckily  the  Scene  is  a
social  system quite far from being an
ethic state, so, it's again looking at
civil laws which rule our modern world
that  we  have to find the solution to
our juridical problems.

c13Let's  begin  analysing the legal act,
the  text  written by Acbs in which he
declares  the passage of Showtime from
Ram  Jam hands (rightly represented by
his chief) to Darkage:
c12f4"[...] The matter is that we (Ram Jam)
are  too  much  envolved in working or
studying  to  continue  such a big and
wonderful  project.  So we gave to our
old  mates  the  permission  (and  the
source   code)   to   keep   on   with
Showtime. [...]"f1.
c13Literally,  Acbs  states  f4c12"WE  GAVE...
THE  PERMISSION  (AND THE SOURCE CODE)
TO KEEP ON WITH SHOWTIME".
f1c13First thing to underline:
c11a)c12  "gave"  is the past of give.  Give
is  a  verb  which  has  really a wide
series  of  meanings  but  I  have  no
doubts  (looking at the whole sense of
the  sentence)  Acbs  used  it  as -to
cause  someone  to have, hold, receive
or  own  something-.   In  other words
here  the  main  man  behind  Ram  Jam
transfers   a   right   (be   careful!
"right"  in  the  legal  sense!)  over
Showtime  to Darkage.
Now,  we  just  have to discover which
kind  of  right this one is, and which
legal form this transfer has, because,
of  course,  things are very different
if  this  right is property, usufruct,
lease  or  something  else.   In  fact
while holding a property allows you to
do  practically  everything using your
owned   thing,   for  instance,  lease
allows  you to do few things, strictly
defined  by  the same lawful owner and
the law itself.

c11b) c12  f4c13"we  are  too  much  envolved  in
working or studying to continue such a
project"f1c12.   It's evident that the lack
of   time   it's   not   caused  by  a
TEMPORALLY LIMITED reason.  The owners
have no time any more.

c11Here's  the point.
c13There's  a  transfer of a right, which
is  not temporary.  Enough elements to
say Ram Jam gave the whole property of
Showtime  to  Darkage, thus losing all
their      pretences      over     the
diskchartmagazine.
Useless  to  say  even  other elements
confirm  this  hypothesis  such as the
fact "the source code" means also that
not  just  names  but  even materially
Showtime had been given to Darkagers.

c12Of  course  I'm  not  a judge, and the
lines  you've just written are only an
opinion.  But there are no doubts that
even   in  the  case  an  hypothetical
scenish  court  would  declare Ram Jam
did just rent (which, I repeat, as far
as   I   know   it's   impossible   to
demonstrate)  Showtime,  the very same
Acbs'  group  can't  pretend  to  have
everything      back     without     a
compensation,  which  couldn't be just
moral.