Did anybody actually look? There is a copyright notice inside:Fearless Leader said:Well, never officially copyrighted. None of the books were ever officially copyrighted until I started Ashbury and copyrighted my own books. That was one of the main points on my side during the lawsuit.
edit: And it should be noted that we used to call the Rule Book the "Players Guide" back then. So this is technically the Rule Book for 1991 or so.
This book is (c) 1990, 1991 by New England Roleplaying Organization, and is for use in official NERO games only. This book is not designed as a stand alone game system, but only as a suppliment (sic) for the player in a NERO sponsored game. Use of these rules by purchaser in any game where admission is charged is prohibited.
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in whole or in part, by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without expressed written permission of NERO.
Purchase of this book implies acceptance of the above terms.
NERO, New England Roleplaying Organization, and the NERO logo are trademarks of
212A Massachusetts Ave
Arlington, MASS 02174
And while this copyright may never have been registered with the US Trademarks and Copyrights Office, or Library of Congress, it is a valid copyright statement as it contains the year, name, and place of the copyright. As to whether Joe or Mike V or Mike I are the copyright holders may not be clearly stated, herein, but I would be curious (where I the judge in the prior, aborted case) to know precisely whose address appears above.
And, no -- intention to distribute without gain is not an element of determining if a copyright violation has occurred when any of the above elements have been violated - or so my lawyer has informed me many times. Clearly a violation on intellectual property rights has occurred by distributing the 3rd edition as an Acrobat file.
Mike V - as owner of this game, I think you have a clear responsibility to have the linking reference removed from this board -- or else you might be seen as aiding the infringement where it proven that you were not the copyright holder. And if you are the valid copyright holder, you might be seen as abandoning that right to electronic distribution without limitation, even without the distribution having been for monetary gain. But you are a lawyer, so you probably already know that.