Leaving your data out in the open [Archive] - Indiegamer Developer Discussion Boards

GBGames

12-23-2004, 08:21 AM

Well, I doubt many people will be able to tell. All sounds have been changed in at least one way or are royalty free sounds...

I doubt anybody will spot it, especially as I won't be making many sales anyway.

btw, I noticed in ALIEN SHOOTER they nicked the shotgun sound from Quake 1! :o

Actually I believe this was discussed elsewhere. It is very easy for fans of one game to recognize sounds in another. For instance, I don't remember where, but I heard a beep in some movie that reminded me of Starcraft. It was a distinctive beep, too.

Taking someone's work protected under copyright doesn't give you the right to derive anything of your own from it. Fair use is a murky gray area, but generally you can't try to make money from it. More importantly, just because you think no one will catch you, it doesn't make it ok to do it.

Cartman

12-23-2004, 09:27 AM

I know what you mean about the sounds. I've heard sounds from XCom, StarCraft and the Startrek series repeatedly on TV.

Hamumu

12-23-2004, 12:19 PM

I just want to come in and sound obnoxious by saying IP theft isn't something silly for which you should slap yourself on the wrist. It's immoral and nasty behavior besides being illegal. It's making money off the backs of others. I noticed in another thread you mentioned that you pirated Fruity Loops as well. I know that kind of talk goes over well in kiddie forums, but we're not crooks here. We are the people crooks like you steal from. So take it somewhere else and learn to succeed on your own merits.

gmcbay

12-23-2004, 12:35 PM

A mind-boggling number of the sound effects you hear all the time in games, movies and TV are from Sound Idea's Series 6000 sound effects set.

Additionally, most major studios also have their own in-house sound effects libraries that you will hear again and again in tv shows/movies from that studio.

But yeah, using sound effects without permission is unethical and illegal. You can purchase fairly low cost royalty free sound effects from a bunch of websites. (google: royalty free sound effects)

andyb

12-24-2004, 12:40 AM

I picked up 2 sounds effects CD's from my local Staples (office supplies) a couple of months back for £3 each. Well worth it, one had 2750, the other 6000 effects.

BedroomCoder

12-24-2004, 07:54 AM

More importantly, just because you think no one will catch you, it doesn't make it ok to do it.
Who said it was?

Even the copy of the programming language I'm currently using is a copy... I also don't think I've actually bought a audio CD since I was about 8 :-/

Might buy SOAD's 2 new albums later this year tho... :p

OMG this place isnt anti bittorrant is it??? :s

BedroomCoder

12-24-2004, 07:55 AM

More importantly, just because you think no one will catch you, it doesn't make it ok to do it.

Grah I didnt mean to post twice ¬¬

Ricardo C

12-24-2004, 08:11 AM

With so many free development tools available, there's no excuse for using pirated software.

BedroomCoder

12-24-2004, 08:14 AM

I still have to find a sound effects one. And I have no PC mic so theres nothing for me really to work with...

Besides, most of the time when I modify stuff even the original artist wouldnt recognize it. I recently used a gunshot sound effect as a reload sound (after I'd mangled it.)

And most free software has limits and stuff on it - its like what I've always said about plenty of stuff - If it was free I'd get it, if not I wouldnt bother...

I won't go into any more detail because its changing the topic subject.

Does anybody here use .pak files to compress all their stuff together?

Ricardo C

12-24-2004, 09:01 AM

I still have to find a sound effects one. And I have no PC mic so theres nothing for me really to work with...

A quick Yahoo search for "public domain sound effects" yielded, among others, the following links:

http://www.partnersinrhyme.com/
http://www.sound-effect.com/
http://www.therecordist.com/pages/downloads.html

Besides, most of the time when I modify stuff even the original artist wouldnt recognize it. I recently used a gunshot sound effect as a reload sound (after I'd mangled it.)

Do you understand that getting away with it does not make it ok? Because it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

And most free software has limits and stuff on it - its like what I've always said about plenty of stuff - If it was free I'd get it, if not I wouldnt bother...

Free, unrestricted compiler: Dev-C++ (http://bloodshed.net/dev/devcpp.html)

Free, unrestricted graphics libraries:
OpenGL (http://opengl.org/)
Allegro (www.talula.demon.co.uk/allegro)

Free, unrestricted sound library:
OpenAL (http://www.openal.org/)

Free, unrestricted 3D modeling programs:
Wings3D (www.wings3d.com)
Anim8or (www.anim8or.com)
Deled 3D Editor (http://www.delgine.com/)

Free, unrestricted image manipulation programs:
The GIMP (http://gimp-win.sourceforge.net/)
Serif Photoplus 5 (http://www.freeserifsoftware.com/serif/ph/ph5/index.asp)
Project Dogwaffle Free Edition (http://www.thebest3d.com/dogwaffle/free/)
sTile (http://harmware.com/sTile.htm)
Wally (http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Wally/950646236/1)

Free, unrestricted audio editor:
Audacity (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/)

Free, unrestricted game engines (unless you consider Open Source restrictive):
The Quake engine (http://www.idsoftware.com/business/techdownloads/?id=79815b6e65051a0a1952b6edf65e278d)
The Quake II engine (http://www.idsoftware.com/business/techdownloads/?id=79815b6e65051a0a1952b6edf65e278d)
The Tenebrae engine (http://tenebrae.sourceforge.net/)
The OGRE engine (http://www.ogre3d.org/)

Free, unrestricted rapid development tools:
Reality Factory (based on the Genesis3D engine) (http://www.realityfactory.ca/v3/)
3DRAD v3 (http://www.3drad.com/info.htm)
GameMaker (2D) (http://www.gamemaker.nl/)

Getting into game development has never been easier than it is now. There's absolutely no need to pirate someone else's hard work.

I won't go into any more detail because its changing the topic subject.

Yes, it'd be wise for you to shut the hell up about pirating software, especially when posting on a developers' forum...

Does anybody here use .pak files to compress all their stuff together?

I used to not pack anything, but it seems I'll have to start, lest 14-year-old warez kiddies start nicking my assets :rolleyes:

Anthony Flack

12-24-2004, 09:51 AM

Why do you care? Someone nicks a "blip" or a door opening or similar off your game, modifies it, and uses it in a different context. Unless it was blatant or large-scale, what's the big deal?

It used to all right to recycle culture like this - now it's been rebranded as evil, and all it does is hamper creativity. I'm recording a ton of sound effects and stuff for my game because it's actually easier than tracking down appropriate samples. But if someone decided they'd really like to use my door-opening sound or footstep sound in their game, I won't really mind. It doesn't matter. And if they modify it, then it truly, truly doesn't matter.

I can't even fairly claim it as "my precious hard work!" because a recording a single sample is very little work if you're doing heaps of them.

Ricardo C

12-24-2004, 10:12 AM

Why do you care? Someone nicks a "blip" or a door opening or similar off your game, modifies it, and uses it in a different context. Unless it was blatant or large-scale, what's the big deal?

I care about the work I create, down to the smallest component. I don't want a random person to use my assets in his own project any more than I want them to crack my software. If you don't care about someone "borrowing" from you, that's your business.

By the way, who decides what's "blatant" or "large scale"? The thief?

It used to all right to recycle culture like this

When?

- now it's been rebranded as evil, and all it does is hamper creativity.

I would say cash-strapped developers having to make do with limited resources need to be more creative than the guy who grabs his assets from other products.

BedroomCoder

12-24-2004, 10:30 AM

Btw, when I said software, I meant mostly PC games... ¬¬

I know of those free sites, I use samples off those and off findsounds.com. I don't actually nick them right out of games...

Also I have given my graphics away before to other programmers... music as well, I think. Sound effects are usually the same ones over and over... I've nicked from other games (other freeware to make my freeware) and other freeware games have nicked sounds from mine too.

I think by "large scale", he means distinctive or uncommon sound effects, like the DOOM 2 super shotgun reloading sound (found in lots of freeware games).

Do you understand that getting away with it does not make it ok? Because it doesn't seem to be sinking in.

"If nobody see's it, then nobody gets mad! Its the American waaaaaaaay!" - Cherry Bobbins, The Simpsons

Ricardo C

12-24-2004, 10:42 AM

Also I have given my graphics away before to other programmers... music as well, I think. Sound effects are usually the same ones over and over... I've nicked from other games (other freeware to make my freeware) and other freeware games have nicked sounds from mine too.

But you chose to let others borrow your graphics. You had a choice. Taking without even asking is just not cool, no matter how small the amount "borrowed."

I once saw a few models on Polycount that I loved, and that would be a good fit for the project I was working on at the time. I contacted the author, explained my situation (zero budget, just trying to finish a game, etc.) and he wrote back saying I could help myself to his work. But I asked beforehand. If I had taken them without checking with him first, he probably would have been irked enough to sue.

"If nobody see's it, then nobody gets mad! Its the American waaaaaaaay!" - Cherry Bobbins, The Simpsons

"Stealing! How could you? Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives sermons at church? Captain what's-his-name?" - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

BedroomCoder

12-24-2004, 03:43 PM

But you chose to let others borrow your graphics. You had a choice. Taking without even asking is just not cool, no matter how small the amount "borrowed."

No, the people took the graphics without asking.

I once saw a few models on Polycount that I loved, and that would be a good fit for the project I was working on at the time. I contacted the author, explained my situation (zero budget, just trying to finish a game, etc.) and he wrote back saying I could help myself to his work. But I asked beforehand. If I had taken them without checking with him first, he probably would have been irked enough to sue.

I've used a few 3Dcafe models on freeware games before (and so have a few friends of mine, and one guy I know used 2 polycount models without permission too...), but all the models (currently :p) for CLONES have been used with permission, used from royalty free + free model sites, or paid for.

"Stealing! How could you? Haven't you learned anything from that guy who gives sermons at church? Captain what's-his-name?" - Homer Simpson, The Simpsons

Cherry Bobbins > Homer Simpson.

Anthony Flack

12-25-2004, 06:42 AM

I care about the work I create, down to the smallest component.

Your work is not affected. You don't lose out. In fact, you'll almost certainly never even know. You might say, "but it's my property, and they're stealing it, and I object on principle!" - but of course, it isn't quite stealing... and it isn't quite your property, either.

What we have (or used to have; were supposed to have) with copyright law is a way to allow content creators a fair chance to capitalise on their work, but balanced against the right of other people to recontextualise that work to create new work. It's a balancing act that was intended to maximise the amount of new work generated - a balance that has been skewed way out of whack in the recent digital copyright hysteria.

You ask when it was okay to sample other peoples work - it's always been accepted until recently. Artists made cut-up collages from magazines and sold them for profit - without permission! Musicians would collage and recontextualise sound. Filmmakers made new work by cutting up other films. This had nothing but positive effects on culture.

Regarding permission - sure, it's nice to ask. But it's not always practical. I've used royalty-free sound effects - but who knows where they really came from. I have no way of knowing.

Similarly, I do the occasional bit of graphics work for TV. Now let's say that I want a picture of a coffee cup to stick on a table in the background somewhere. The correct procedure is probably to purchase a stock photo of a cup from somewhere, probably stupidly expensive for something so inconsequential. Or perhaps I should take my own photo (and hope that I'm not infringing on the cup manufacturer's IP by taking the photo).

But I don't have time for that - I can't afford to spend more than a couple of minutes on the stupid cup. The reality is, what I do is I do a google image search, grab the first generic cup I see, cut it out and slap it on. Getting permission for every little thing is not only prohibitively time-wasting and unnecessary, it's frequently not possible to track down the author. And since copyright applies by default, it is very difficult to know if something is in the public domain. So I basically go, "you can't recognise it, it doesn't matter, they'll never know, it doesn't hurt anyone and I don't care". The law might say differently, but then the law, currently, is an ass. It's not like I was capitalising on the value of anyone else's IP... any coffee cup will do.

With regards to the super shotgun sound from Doom - I was actually thinking larger scale than that. Like, er, taking all the sound effects from Doom and selling them as a sound effects library. If some freeware author uses the super shotgun sound from Doom, then who cares? Id have no reason to fret about it. It doesn't devalue Doom at all. Maybe if it's obviously recognisable, people will laugh at the freeware author (unless they actually intended to make an overt reference to Doom, in which case, very good). Heck, for all we know, id originally made the sound by modifying a sample from some movie.

Anyway, this isn't a topic that you can cover in a few paragraphs as there are lots of aspects to consider. The hysterical "stop thief!" position is largely a result of years of relentless propaganda from big media, and I think it requires more careful consideration than this simple knee-jerk reaction. Because things are starting to get ridiculous. Watch a documentary and try not to be distracted as all posters, product logos, TVs in the background that are turned on etc. are pixellated out. Witness as Cas gives his game a stupid name for fear of incurring the wrath of The Elvis Presley Company. The world's got copyright fever.

Before you reply and rip my post to pieces, I suggest reading the book Free Culture, if you haven't already. It's a very interesting book on the subject which all you guys should at least read and consider. Among the topics it covers is the myth that casual piracy is hurting authors - a topic that crops up here occasionally.

You can download it for free (legally) here: http://free-culture.org/

Go on, give it a read. It covers the subject far better than I could in a measly forum post.

Ricardo C

12-25-2004, 07:18 AM

The law might say differently, but then the law, currently, is an ass.

Thanks for the attempt at debate, but if your position is based on that nugget I quoted, I have no interest in pursuing a discussion with you. Not that I necessarily disagree re: copyright law needing an oveerhaul, but I definitely disagree if the implication is "I disagree with current copyright law, therefore I will set myself up as judge of what 'fair use' should entail." Anarchy is no better than totalitarianism.

Anthony Flack

12-25-2004, 07:49 AM

You don't need to pursue a discussion with me. Just read the book.

And yes, I have broken laws. I'm generally law-abiding, but some laws are corrupt and stupid, and I can't say I feel any particular compulsion to abide by them if I can get away with it.

On the other hand, there are many perfectly legal things that I won't do because I consider them immoral. I take my ethical responsibilities seriously, but yes, I do decide these things for myself. Whether you consider that reprehensible isn't relevant - it isn't any of your business, really.

I suspect everyone else is the same in this regard. After all, the law isn't there to define our morality, it's simply there to constrain our actions. But if following the letter of the law at all times is part of your own personal morality, then that's fine too.

Anyway, please, don't worry about debating with me. Just read the book. It's interesting.

Everyone else, too! You wanted a book of the week? You got it right here! Free to download!

Ricardo C

12-25-2004, 08:07 AM

On the other hand, there are many perfectly legal things that I won't do because I consider them immoral. I take my ethical responsibilities seriously, but yes, I do decide these things for myself. Whether you consider that reprehensible isn't relevant - it isn't any of your business, really.

Choosing not to exercise a right you consider immoral isn't quite the same as violating the laws you consider "corrupt and stupid", which in this particular case at least, leads to the violation of the rights of others. Which makes it the business of anyone who happens to be the target of your own personal moral code.

GBGames

12-25-2004, 10:26 AM

Anthony Flack: I agree with you regarding the idiocy of the copyright laws regarding digital works.

I also think that modifying sounds for your own use in the manner that Bedroom Coder is referring to shouldn't be a huge deal. He is taking an old sound, modifying it, and making a completely new sound. The purpose of copyright is to advance science and the arts, and current laws are actually stifling creativity more than helping.

But my posts were a warning that the law doesn't necessarily agree with me here, so BedroomCoder should be careful.

Also, it is good to know that someone else on here is a fan of Lawrence Lessig. B-)

BedroomCoder: No, people here aren't anti-bittorrent (or, rather, they shouldn't be). They are, however, against copyright violations and those who violate them, regardless of whether or not you use a legal technology like bittorrent to do it . Allowing small violations as "no big deal" just opens the door to allowing bigger violations as "no bigger deal". I agree with Ricardo C that just because you believe your morals are better than the law doesn't mean you should feel that it doesn't apply to you.

(WARNING: Gross simplification of events follows)

Richard M. Stallman didn't like the idea of proprietary software because if there were bugs (if, hah), he couldn't fix them. He couldn't improve the software. He couldn't learn from the code. Rather than hack at such software to get access to do all these things, though, he created his own software license that makes use of the same copyright laws but fits his needs. Rather than a license that said, "You are not allowed to do x, y, and z", his license said "you are explicitly allowed to do x, y, and z". Hence, the GPL and similar licenses. Whereas a lot of people would have simply reverse engineered proprietary software, even if it was against the EULA, he instead did something completely legal.

According to the ESA (read: Microsoft, EA, Big Game Industry companies), Fair Use isn't something that you can just claim. Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis. However, I think it is fair to say that if your claim fits previous claims that have succeeded, you'll likely succeed. For example, VCRs allow you to time shift television programs. Technically, this is considered illegal copying of copyrighted works. The courts decided that this fit fair use though, so it is legal now, and in fact made itself into an entire billion dollar industry. I believe it is possible that emulators will follow suit here since they for example allow you to play your old NES games on your PC (platform shifting, something the ESA claims "isn't needed"). But you can't just do something and assume it will be protected under Fair Use (at least according to the ESA).

Anthony Flack

12-26-2004, 02:11 AM

Of course the law still applies - but only if you're taken to court. The rest of the time, people just go about their lives without laws being applied. Since the things we're talking about are so inconsequential, and practically untracable, I think the chances of the law being applied are pretty close to nil.

So if it's not morally objectionable, and you're almost certainly not going to get in trouble for it, then why do people get so worked up about it?

Choosing not to exercise a right you consider immoral isn't quite the same as violating the laws you consider "corrupt and stupid", which in this particular case at least, leads to the violation of the rights of others. Which makes it the business of anyone who happens to be the target of your own personal moral code.

Yes, it's entirely between them and me. And I can just see the faces of my targets now, as I confess to my crimes: "You know that Christmas party you had last year? And you took than photo of Uncle Derek asleep in the armchair, and put it on the internet? And you can see some lime green curtains in the background? Well I stole the image of those lime green curtains from you!"

There is a lot of sermonising that goes on around here about this sort of minor technical infringement. Like the mock horror everyone puts on when someone confesses to running an emulator. I just don't see the need for such zealotry.

And every time I start talking about right and wrong, why does it always turn into a discussion about legal and illegal? I guess what I'm trying to say here is, let's not confuse the two.

Ricardo C

12-26-2004, 02:59 AM

There is a lot of sermonising that goes on around here about this sort of minor technical infringement. Like the mock horror everyone puts on when someone confesses to running an emulator. I just don't see the need for such zealotry.

I defend the use of emulators, on the grounds that many users are merely playing games they already own in cartridge form, and which for one reason or another (console broke down and can no longer be serviced, carts rotted, etc.) can't be played in their original form. Furthermore, I argue that giving emu users free rein to play and distribute out of print titles helps keep the current incarnations of those franchises alive and in the public consciousness.

However, I also respect the position the games' producers/publishers find themselves in: Protect your trademark or risk losing it down the line. This may not concenr you given your stance on current copyright law, but distaste for a specific law isn't going to render it moot overnight. I don't want to see emulation sites disappear, but the manufacturers have every right to shut them down, regardless of myself and others wholeheartedly believing they are not harmful to the industry, but rather beneficial.

Ideally, each major manufacturer would offer these games legally (Sega and Intellivision have done so, but on a very limited basis.) However, should this attitude apply to software that is still producing money for the creators, such as recent arcade and console games? I can see giving someone a pass for playing 8-bit NES games on an emulator. But would I be so sympathetic towards someone playing GBA or N64 games on their PC? I doubt it. And ultimately, that's why we have copyrigh laws. I believe is better to have an imperfect standard than to deal with six billion people each trying to impose their own personal moral code on me.

And every time I start talking about right and wrong, why does it always turn into a discussion about legal and illegal? I guess what I'm trying to say here is, let's not confuse the two.

And what I'm trying to say, and I apologize for any sermonising I may have done earlier, is: "Who decides whose code of ethics is right?" If everyone imitated you and said "stuff copyright law, I'm going to deal with the issue according to my own moral code", what would the creative landscape look like? Would you be ok with me taking artwork from Cletus Clay, "reworking it", and using it on a game of my own? You might say "pffft, what do I care if someone nicks a little background sprite?" But what if I rip an entire backdrop, edit it, and use it? Would copyright law come in handy then?

Again, I prefer a faulty standard to perfect ethical anarchy.

BedroomCoder

12-26-2004, 04:48 AM

Ok, my case:

If I do not get caught, I am probably not going to care. If I edit a sound, I will edit it behond recognition.

I don't generally live in the world of the law, I have done some things before which are probably a lot more dodgy than editing and using a few sound effects, and I don't generally think theres going to be Internet police, scouring the Internet for B-list Shareware games, finding the authors and quizzing them over their sound effects. (If there was I would probably take my game off the web, modify the sound some more and then reupload it.)

If (me==uncaught);
not_care=1;
period();
full_stop();
end

Just because you believe your morals are better than the law doesn't mean you should feel that it doesn't apply to you.

*resists giant urge to go "I DON'T CAaaAAAaAAAaaAAAaAAAaAAAAAAaaaaAAAARRRREEEEEEE!!!! !!!!!!1111tehone*

My game will probably be played by a grand total of 15 people, and so far, all the people who've played it I have known personally (no, not parents or grandparents) and they are not sound-effect-legal-fanatics.

I watched an "18" movie when I was 12 (and others, like a 15 when I was 14, etc): TEH LAWBREAKING!

I download music and software for free: TEH LAWBREAKING!

I have used illigal fireworks before: TEH LAWBREAKING!

I have used cracks before (and strangely, I still dont know what warez and roms are): TEH LAWBREAKING!

I have used sound effects that I have modified behond recognition: Teh lawbreaking?

/my_case

"stuff copyright law, I'm going to deal with the issue according to my own moral code", what would the creative landscape look like? - Dog shit, because it would be mix and match graphics. Same as when you buy 10 differant art pieces and mix em.

hmm... probably wasnt the best place to admit all that... :-/

Anthony Flack

12-26-2004, 05:57 AM

Probably not the best place to admit that, no. But at least you do admit it.

Now, of course I'm not advocating we throw out the concept of copyright. I do believe it's seriously perverted at the moment, but we still would be completely screwed without it. I'm just saying, a minor infringement is nothing to get worked up about.

And as for moral codes versus law - well, moral codes are what society runs on from day to day. Like I said, the law only applies if you're taken to court. Whereas your moral code operates all the time, even when nobody's looking. This works well enough that most people never end up in court in their lives, and so never actually have the law applied to them.

Appropriated work looking like dog shit because it doesn't match - well, that's certainly one reason why content creators don't have to fear for their livelihoods. But on the other hand, a collage look where NOTHING matches anything else is a coherent style in itself. You only have to look to artists that use appropriated words, images or sounds to see that it's possible to do great stuff with found materials. I'm still waiting for someone to make a Terry Gilliam-style game using cut out photographs; that would be excellent.

And then there are other times when you really have to make everything yourself. Which is how things are for me. So how would I feel about having my stuff ripped? Something like this:

Take a single vocal sample and use it for something else - yeah, okay.
Take the whole collection of 300+ vocal samples that all go together and use them all in your own game - no way. I'll have a word to say about that.
Take a whole bunch of vocal samples and use them in a piece of music you made - that's fine.
Take a background, modify it and use it in your own game - depends how modified. Depends how prominent.

BedroomCoder

12-26-2004, 12:35 PM

So, some simple deduction:

- The law only matters when you get caught and/or (possibly) go to court.
- The rest of the time your moral code decides things for you.
- If your moral code is to follow the law, then so be it (do not confuse this with the actual law, its a bit like a C pointer to the law - "moral code" = pointer to "the law").
- If your moral code is to break the law*, you will either get found out or get away with it.

- If the makers of the original material or other people playing the game couldnt recognize the samples because they had been modified so much, then you will not get caught.

- If your moral code isnt to follow the law*, then the above condition is perfectly valid.

- If your moral code is to follow the law, then the statement is not valid.

- Some people can influence other peoples moral code, but this usually requires some incentive (to overcome getting samples for free, and to also be able to be creative by modifiying the samples using some sound altering software).

* = "break the law", "isnt to follow the law" means only in copyright situations, not talking about robbing banks, killing people, etc.

CONCLUSION:

Some people follow the law 100%, some don't follow 100% of the law. Thats the way it is.

GBGames

12-26-2004, 01:58 PM

So how would I feel about having my stuff ripped? Something like this:

Take a single vocal sample and use it for something else - yeah, okay.
Take the whole collection of 300+ vocal samples that all go together and use them all in your own game - no way. I'll have a word to say about that.
Take a whole bunch of vocal samples and use them in a piece of music you made - that's fine.
Take a background, modify it and use it in your own game - depends how modified. Depends how prominent.

And that's perfectly fine. In fact, you can even license them in this precise manner, even to the point where you say, "Any other uses should require my permission on a case by case basis."

All I was saying was to beware since the law doesn't agree with you regardless if you think you'll get caught or not. I personally agree with you that the laws currently favor the copyright holder way more than they should, to the point that the sciences and arts are not being advanced as well or as quickly as they could.

That's why Lawrence Lessig books should be required reading for anyone who wants or has protection under copyright, trademark, or patent laws.

One of the benefits of being indie is that we are closer to our customers. The bigger companies don't WANT their customers to do anything that Legal says shouldn't happen. We're in a unique position to say "You want to play around with the data in your game? ABSOLUTELY! Here's some tools to make it even easier!" Note the exclamation points? They're for the emphasis on our enthusiasm to cater to our customers.

I personally believe emulators are perfectly legal. Yes, people do use them to play games they don't actually own, but many people use them to play games they do own. When games are not distributed anymore, they may be your only choice.

Of course, then Nintendo introduces the GBC and GBA. I loved Spy vs Spy for the NES. A version of it was released for the GBC. Now what Ricardo C was perfectly fine with is actually mixed with what he wasn't ok with. If I already play the game on an emulator, what incentive do I have to buy it for a system I may or may not already own? This is why Marvel's lawsuit is technically within their rights. If they want to make a Marvel-based MMO game, could they do so successfully, especially since many people are already playing as the characters they would want to play as in City of Heroes?

But this is getting a bit off topic. Well, so is our discussion. Suffice it to say that I'm personally ok with what BedroomCoder did with the single sound sample since that is exactly what copyright is meant to do and encourage, but that I am still saying that you need to be careful. You don't care? That's fine, especially if you think that no one will play your game. I'm just telling you that it is technically illegal to do, as absurd as it might be, for your own knowledge.

I've used Total Annihilation as an example before. Basically, I bought the game. I love it. Then I got a laptop with no CDROM drive (it was a used one). What could I do? No CD crack. I had to do something technically illegal but within my own moral code to play the game on my laptop.

On the other hand, this Christmas a friend of mine actually thought it would be a great idea to give me a bootleg of a major PC game. Lovely. Will I ever install it? No. In fact, a long while ago I made a decision to get rid of my games that I had illegal copies of. I either bought a legit copy or threw the CDs out. It's actually quite refreshing to be able to look at my games collection and see nothing but the original cases for all of them (well except those that didn't have a case that I could easily store. Those look pirated but aren't).

On gamedev.net I am actually afraid to make posts like this because they have a zero tolerance policy about supporting piracy. If I mentioned that I think the No-CD crack was actually helpful and therefore not the completely evil thing it is made out to be, I would probably get my account banned there. I think that such a policy actually stifles this kind of conversation, especially when discussing whether or not copyright, trademark, and patent law needs reform.

C_Coder

12-26-2004, 02:05 PM

ggambett

12-26-2004, 02:45 PM

If (me==uncaught);
not_care=1;
period();
full_stop();
end
What do you mean by that? Where are the braces? What's that ; doing in the if line? :confused:

GBGames

12-26-2004, 04:29 PM

What do you mean by that? Where are the braces? What's that ; doing in the if line? :confused:

It means that regardless if he gets caught, he doesn't care.

BedroomCoder

12-26-2004, 04:53 PM

No, it actually means that if I don't get caught, I dont care - you wouldnt recognise it though, its from a programming language called div that I doubt you know of, its not coded in C++/C or any popular language. I just used Div because I havent tried doing any C++/C forages and I didn't want to have to go dragging up old notes on it...

But yeah there shouldn't be a ; after the if, although it doesn't actually alter anything when you compile it in Div.

Also having a big huge file make it seem more professional...Always my opinion.

Indeed so... :D

On gamedev.net I am actually afraid to make posts like this because they have a zero tolerance policy about supporting piracy. If I mentioned that I think the No-CD crack was actually helpful and therefore not the completely evil thing it is made out to be, I would probably get my account banned there. I think that such a policy actually stifles this kind of conversation, especially when discussing whether or not copyright, trademark, and patent law needs reform.

Why do you think I've never joined one of those forums? ;)

That's fine, especially if you think that no one will play your game. I'm just telling you that it is technically illegal to do, as absurd as it might be, for your own knowledge.

My uncle once said to me, when I pointed out all the illigal stuff he owned in his workshop (banned firecrackers/french bangers and one of those illigal radios, I think...), "Yeah, but the laws fucked."

I know its technically illigal, but a lot of stuff is "technically" this, "technically" that, but most of it never gets enforced and therefore some people don't ever know its even illigal... but yeah I know. When going to make my next (and hopefully, full OpenGL 3D and much more popular) game, "ATTAK", I won't be using illigal stuff, I'll use loads of vocal sound effects, edited on the PC (recorded by me - getting a PC mic soon!)

And I do think SOME people will play my game, in fact I now have 3 more people (who say that they would probably buy the game when it comes out - I know its a silly thing to do but it don't cost me a dime, and so far its only been over MSN :) And since its a fiver, their opinions not likely to change...) than I need now to break even - but in the big picture, about 99.000000000009 % of the world won't play it :p

Oh, BTW - Was "SPY VS SPY" that game that that guy died playing, cause he got so addicted and wouldnt rest, sleep, eat, etc... ?

halodrake

12-27-2004, 05:23 AM

Besides, most of the time when I modify stuff even the original artist wouldn't recognize it. I recently used a gunshot sound effect as a reload sound (after I'd mangled it.)

This does, OTOH, bring up an interesting point. How much altercation to an artist's work has to happen before it is no longer considered the same piece of art? For example, Duschamp repainted an exact copy of the Mona Lisa, and then he added a moustache. Is this IP theft? Or is he making a statement, and thus by altering the Mona Lisa (even a little) he has created something new?

It's not something we can easily dismiss. I myself am highly against pirating and IP theft. But-> if he edits it enough to become something *completely different* is it still the same thing? Is he still stealing?

I don't think he is.

EDIT:
heh. Just read the other posts. Guess I got some people to agree with.

mahlzeit

12-27-2004, 05:33 AM

All intellectual property rights expire after a certain time. The Mona Lisa is no longer copyrighted by anyone. So you can make as many clones as you like. Of course, you still can't commit forgery or plagiarism. :)

halodrake

12-27-2004, 05:59 AM

GBGames

12-27-2004, 07:04 AM

BedroomCoder: Spy vs Spy was a game based on the Mad comic strip of the same name. I am not sure what game and person you are referring to, but I believe it was one of Blizzard's titles, and it affected someone in an Internet cafe in South Korea.

About the Mona Lisa, yes, the copyright would have expired, but I think the point is that regardless of the status of copyright on a work, how much change is considered derivative and how much change is needed to make a "completely new" work?

milieu

12-27-2004, 08:38 AM

You have no idea what I'm talking about, do you? Duschamp also picked up a toilet, signed his name to it, renamed it a "water fountain" and called it art. Now, his *art* in this case begs a question- is it his art? Just because he signed his name to it and renamed it? Or does the IP belong to the manufacturer of the toilet? How much do we need to change something before it is our property and no longer someone else's?

If he paid for the toilet, it is his to do with as he likes. He can install it in his house, smash it, or turn it into art. Same thing applies to artists who work in collage...they cut photos, drawings, text, etc. out of magazines and books, combine it in a pleasing fashion, and sell it as a piece of art.

However, the manufacturer still owns the rights to duplicating the item. Duschamp could not begin manufacturing "water fountains" that were identical to the toilet he used for his art. In the case of collage, an artist would have to buy multiple copies of the magazine if they wanted to duplicate their piece of art. Which is why most collage pieces are unique.

halodrake

12-27-2004, 08:58 AM

Actually, it was a public urinal he tore out of a public restroom, if I remember right, and then (as the mythology goes) he used it to pay for his dinner at a resteruant.

But either way, that's still side stepping the real problem here. Let's say he reproduced a hundred of them, all with his name on them. The exact same urinal. Would it be his art then because he changed some slight thing about it? How much does one have to alter before they can claim ownership?

C_Coder

12-27-2004, 09:06 AM

It is a very good argument but if you are using some piece of copyrighted work to base your creation on, even if you make it unrecognizable, in a way you are using a base for some purpose no? Does it mean that if you did not use the base piece of work you could not have done the final result from scratch?

Just a question.

milieu

12-27-2004, 09:57 AM

Let's say he reproduced a hundred of them, all with his name on them. The exact same urinal. Would it be his art then because he changed some slight thing about it? How much does one have to alter before they can claim ownership?
Nope, he would be in violation of the manufacturer's IP rights. Remember, the manufacturer is the creator of the toilet, and controls their creation as long as they control the IP rights. If he bought 100 of the toilets from the manufacturer and signed them all, then he would be in the right.

As far as digital assets go, you normally only buy one copy of the assets - the game cd itself. So, I would suggest that you are free to use those assets as you wish. Modify them and add them to your game.

The only catch is that you have to send the game cd along when you ship the game. ;)

halodrake

12-27-2004, 11:09 AM

But, he put the toilet into a different context- made it something else. The plumbing company would not go out of business, since they were not competing with him. He created something new by recontextualizing something else- made a toilet art- so hypothetically, when people bought this mass-produced "water fountain" they would not be buying a toilet, but art.

By putting this in a new context, I do believe he has the right to claim it as his own IP. Now, if he was selling them as tiolets, I would agree with you. But the point was he had done something new to them.

Another example- pop art. Is Andy Worhol a Pir8 that stole campbell soup's property? Does he owe them royaties? Was he stealing from them? Or, did he create something new out of something old, and can claim complete ownership?

mahlzeit

12-27-2004, 11:29 AM

What kind of intellectual property protection do toilets have?

GBGames

12-27-2004, 11:34 AM

What kind of intellectual property protection do toilets have?

You could patent the design. Call it a business method. B-)

milieu

12-27-2004, 11:49 AM

What kind of intellectual property protection do toilets have?
The name certainly can be trademarked, so don't be using Powerflush 9000 in any games. The design of the toilet, although that's a lot harder to protect. They could probably patent the mechanism if it were unique in some way.

Putting the toilet aside for a sec, I think the point is that IP laws control duplication and distribution of a design, be it a physical object or a digital one. It is against IP law to create new identical copies of a copyrighted or trademarked work without permission.

Those artists were not creating new copies. They were making use of existing copies, that they legitimately owned.

There is a principal called The Right of First Sale that allows people to dispose of their property as they wish. Otherwise, it would be against the law to sell used CDs, games, books, etc., as this would amount to distribution of someone else's IP.

I am suggesting that you could indeed use media that you own to create new media...for example, taking the shotgun sound out of Doom. But you have no right to distribute any new copies; you must provide a legal copy of the Doom CD every time you sell that game. Otherwise, you're breaking the law.

GBGames

12-27-2004, 11:55 AM

Putting the toilet aside for a sec, I think the point is that IP laws control duplication and distribution of a design, be it a physical object or a digital one. It is against IP law to create new identical copies of a copyrighted or trademarked work without permission.

Just to make a side point: IP law makes it sound like there is one set of laws for all forms of intellectual property. Copyright, trademark, and patent laws are all different and should be addressed as such to avoid confusion. At least, I tend to think so.

There is a principal called The Right of First Sale that allows people to dispose of their property as they wish. Otherwise, it would be against the law to sell used CDs, games, books, etc., as this would amount to distribution of someone else's IP.

Used CDs are still legal to sell, but how much longer will that be the case? As I understand it, there are already stores that won't accept used returns, and some used record stores have come under fire from the RIAA.

Used games? I already can't return them at most retailers. This may be different outside of the United States, but that is the case here.

Evak

12-27-2004, 12:06 PM

I use a utility called Mole Box, didn't bother with our first 2 games, Aerial Antics and Market value, but now that I'm moving onto more demanding projects where I care more about the media and effort I put in, I want to keep my media safe.

Molebox seemes to have improved in the last couple of updates and is a lot more stable and could keep most people from digging too deep into your games.

Yuriy O

12-27-2004, 12:07 PM

If you purchase a license for your sound effects (instead of making your own), you may be required to "package" them so others can't easily redistribute them.

What do you mean by a license? We just purchase tracks exclusively made for us.

As far as open or closed. Thieves will always get it. Packed or not. Making a good packager means more development costs, testing time... Unless your game's budget is at least over $100K, I personally don't see a reason to pack or try to preserve something. It will not increase the sales :)

Ricardo C

12-27-2004, 12:20 PM

What do you mean by a license? We just purchase tracks exclusively made for us.

I think he's referring to those pre-made sound libraries you can buy online. You purchase a non-exclusive license to use the sounds on your projects, but they retain the copyright and the right to license the same sounds to other developers.

BedroomCoder

12-27-2004, 02:11 PM

I am suggesting that you could indeed use media that you own to create new media...for example, taking the shotgun sound out of Doom. But you have no right to distribute any new copies; you must provide a legal copy of the Doom CD every time you sell that game. Otherwise, you're breaking the law.

But, more importantly, would the makers of DOOM (ID software) care? If they didn't, would you care that you are breaking the law?

Also - would the original makers of any sound effects, or people playing the game, be able to tell that you had used their sounds? If they couldn't, would you care that you are breaking the law?

And one more - would the people playing the game, be able to recognize small, insignificent sounds from elsewhere, in your game? If they couldn't, would you care that you are breaking the law?

And if they could, but didn't report it - would you care that you are breaking the law?

I wouldn't.

Ricardo C

12-27-2004, 02:31 PM

But, more importantly, would the makers of DOOM (ID software) care? If they didn't, would you care that you are breaking the law?

Why don't you ask them? Hey, for all we know they might say "sure, kid, go ahead."

Also - would the original makers of any sound effects, or people playing the game, be able to tell that you had used their sounds? If they couldn't, would you care that you are breaking the law?

And one more - would the people playing the game, be able to recognize small, insignificent sounds from elsewhere, in your game? If they couldn't, would you care that you are breaking the law?

And if they could, but didn't report it - would you care that you are breaking the law?

I wouldn't.

I would. I could be using pirated software right now (an example I think pertains to this discussion since you've already owned up to using cracked software), and who would be the wiser? I could ditch my clunky (but 100% legal) copy of The GIMP and get a sleek, fully-featured warez copy of Photoshop, and who would be able to tell based on the final product? Adobe would never know, unless I started blabbing about it online. But I would know. And I don't like the feeling that comes with engaging in unethical behavior. Your mileage obviously varies. And apparently, since no one's banned you, you're in the clear as far as this forum is concerned. But don't expect a medal for your attitude.

GBGames

12-27-2004, 02:44 PM

Why don't you ask them? Hey, for all we know they might say "sure, kid, go ahead."

In all likelihood, they would. I heard from someone that a university was having problems with the students playing pirated copies of Quake on the LAN they had. The university contacted id to ask for a site license, and id said basically, "Yeah go ahead. That's fine."

Of course, when your revenue streams don't necessarily depend on the actual game so much as the engine used by it, I think you can afford to take this attitude.

BedroomCoder

12-27-2004, 05:18 PM

Why don't you ask them? Hey, for all we know they might say "sure, kid, go ahead."

I would. I could be using pirated software right now (an example I think pertains to this discussion since you've already owned up to using cracked software), and who would be the wiser? I could ditch my clunky (but 100% legal) copy of The GIMP and get a sleek, fully-featured warez copy of Photoshop, and who would be able to tell based on the final product? Adobe would never know, unless I started blabbing about it online. But I would know. And I don't like the feeling that comes with engaging in unethical behavior. Your mileage obviously varies. And apparently, since no one's banned you, you're in the clear as far as this forum is concerned. But don't expect a medal for your attitude.

I aint expecting no medals. Just saying that I don't get that feeling. Whos to say whats unethical or not? The law has nothing to do with ethics in my opinion.

And if a forum bans me for that sorta talk, well then I don't think I'd try to rejoin.

EpicBoy

12-28-2004, 11:21 AM

Most people are taught right from wrong at an early age. That's how they know.

BedroomCoder

12-28-2004, 05:24 PM

Who's to say whats right or wrong? (no I am not saying I like the idea of someone killing someone, I'm just saying, who makes the solid rules of right and wrong?)

EpicBoy

12-28-2004, 05:53 PM

Society does - aka the majority.

oNyx

12-28-2004, 09:11 PM

Going back to the original subject of the thread...I personally prefer to have everything packed up in one file. It is not because of security but I don't like distributions with a pletora of files! ;)

Having just some 4 files in your distribution make it IMHO very neat. :rolleyes:

Also having a big huge file make it seem more professional...Always my opinion. :D

The benefits of packing are optional compression (that's usually silly because the installer will be usually bigger and loading times slower), shorter seek times (because everything is next to each other) and you don't waste any space. Cluster sizes vary from 4-32kb. A 1kb file will therefore waste 3 to 31kb.

One of the programs, I've installed on my machine, wastes more than 100mb for NOTHING. It's all cluster overhead. 70% bloat for absolutely nothing. Gah. A simple stored zip would have saved 100mb and loading times would be also better.

Oh and another nice thing is that it's easier (and faster) to check files for corruption. After all... telling the user to reinstall the application is so much nicer than simply crashing ;)

milieu

12-29-2004, 09:14 AM

Hey! We're trying to have an argument about morals here! No going back to the subject! ;)
The benefits of packing are optional compression (that's usually silly because the installer will be usually bigger and loading times slower), shorter seek times (because everything is next to each other) and you don't waste any space. Cluster sizes vary from 4-32kb. A 1kb file will therefore waste 3 to 31kb.
Isn't it also the case now that it is faster to load a small, compressed file and unpack it in memory than it is to load a large uncompressed file, simply because processors are so fast and disk i/o remains slower by orders of magnitude?

I haven't tried this out, so I don't know from experience. Has anyone tried this recently?

BedroomCoder

12-29-2004, 10:47 AM

Society does - aka the majority.

"I wanna beeeee the minoriiiiiiityyy, I don't need your authorittyyyyyyyyyy, down the with the moral majorityyyyyyy cause I wanna be the minorityyyyy!!!" - Greenday, Minority

Ricardo C

12-29-2004, 11:02 AM

"Try having an original thought once in a while" - Me, right this second.

EpicBoy

12-29-2004, 11:08 AM

"I wanna beeeee the minoriiiiiiityyy, I don't need your authorittyyyyyyyyyy, down the with the moral majorityyyyyyy cause I wanna be the minorityyyyy!!!" - Greenday, Minority
I wish you great success in your marketing endeavors.

Keep raging against that machine. It'll pay off. Really.

halodrake

12-29-2004, 11:10 AM

Wow. How....interesting that you wish to be original, and yet chose a lyric of a popular band to express yourself. How unique. I've never seen anyone do that before.

sarcasm+1

EpicBoy

12-29-2004, 11:29 AM

Why think for yourself when you press "Play"?

BedroomCoder

12-29-2004, 02:32 PM

Well, what if I told you I have no social life, haven't ever had a girlfriend, don't generally like most of the people I meet, haven't "been out" for about 12 months and that that was all before I had ever heard of Greenday?

I put it in the form of a song lyric because I thought it was a novelty way of describing it, not to say "omfg greenday r teh kings ov everyfing!!!11".

The majority? Well I don't seem to know many of them. I don't know many people who don't use rips at least once every 2 or 3 months, and havent even met anybody who'd think it would even cross their minds that using an image found with Google for one of their projects was even unethical. Maybe its because I live in a "rough area" (which I don't, for the slow - I live in a bloody boring little "peaceful" town, and the only louts around are "chavs" and I hate their guts). Maybe its because I'm not a bible addict, or maybe its because I don't live 100% by the law. Maybe I deserve to get decapitated for it! :eek:

Do you even have a statistic for that quote, about the majority? Are you just going by personal experiance? Are you just talking out of your ass? (little game to play here: spot the rhetorical question.)

halodrake

12-29-2004, 03:44 PM

Just shoot me right now. Put me out of my misery.

Why the hell was the thread on programming languages locked but not this one?

BedroomCoder

12-29-2004, 03:48 PM

Dunno. I got a feeling this aint my sorta forum anyway.

halodrake

12-29-2004, 03:50 PM

I hope gypsies use your liver for divination.

BedroomCoder

12-29-2004, 03:53 PM

Hmmmm, they'd better not do that, might not be ethical.

Seriously, why am I not allowed to display what I class as right? "Oh, I'd better lie to you so I can bullshit about where I get my sound effects from." I'm not trying to show off or anything, I'm just saying that someday you're gonna have to face facts - not everyone consults the law before taking a breath, and I'm one of those people. I haven't killed anyone, I haven't robbed anyone of about more than 10 pence worth of audio, I haven't raped anyone... its not like I am or ever have been the prime suspect in a murder case or anything. I know someone selling counterfit DVD's, albums and PC games so he can get extra cash. If you want to go rant at people, rant at people like him. Find some ripping forum and spam it, I dunno, anything.

EpicBoy

12-29-2004, 04:34 PM

The key is: knowing when to shut up.

Let it go.

BedroomCoder

12-29-2004, 04:57 PM

I really think I oughtta leave. It seems the morals of this place don't agree with mine... and I can't resist retorting. Byeeeeeeee

oNyx

12-29-2004, 05:10 PM

[...]
Isn't it also the case now that it is faster to load a small, compressed file and unpack it in memory than it is to load a large uncompressed file, simply because processors are so fast and disk i/o remains slower by orders of magnitude?

I haven't tried this out, so I don't know from experience. Has anyone tried this recently?

Well, it... depends. My 5 year old hdd can read at about 25mb/s. So there isn't much speed to lose anyways (talking about the usual filesizes for indy games).

And compression... I would put compressed files (ogg, jpg etc) into an uncompressed archive. Compressing that archive won't shove off much bytes anyways.

Right now I'm using a mix of lossy/compressed data (ogg) and lossless uncompressed data (tga, levels, configs, classes etc), which are stored in uncompressed archives. Traveling through the net those archives are either zip, p200/gzip or lzma compressed. The TGAs for example take less room there than strongly compressed PNGs (eg with PNGOUT).

On the client side I avoid quite a lot of data transformations, resulting in a loading speed increase of 10-20x for the textures. On older hardware that is. I guess the effect will be smaller on newer machines, but it will be fast enough there either way.

I suggest to just try it for yourself(*). Check the pro and cons and decide which way to pick. Just don't put compressed data into a compressed archive (on the client side). And don't forget the installer step. A bunch of uncompressed TGAs in an uncompressed archive will result in a smaller installer than a bunch of PNGs.

(* You just have to. It all depends on the language and the used libs.)

Anthony Flack

12-29-2004, 07:22 PM

Epicboy, Halodrake, Ricardo C - your sneering condescension isn't very endearing. Hopefully Bedroomcoder hasn't been driven out for good by your superior attitudes.

As for morality being defined by whatever the majority agrees with - I don't think so. Reasoned philosophical enquiry would be a better bet. Who was saying "think for yourself" just a moment ago?

gmcbay

12-29-2004, 07:35 PM

Society does - aka the majority.

In my experience, the majority of people think piracy is A-OK as long as it is easy to do (eg. BitTorrent, pre-lawsuit Napster, etc). So are you sure you want to use that as the measuring stick?

Ricardo C

12-29-2004, 07:37 PM

Epicboy, Halodrake, Ricardo C - your sneering condescension isn't very endearing. Hopefully Bedroomcoder hasn't been driven out for good by your superior attitudes.

Is your patronizing judging any different?

As for morality being defined by whatever the majority agrees with - I don't think so. Reasoned philosophical enquiry would be a better bet. Who was saying "think for yourself" just a moment ago?

Not to speak for EpicBoy, but I believe he was referring to the fact that the "law of the land", perfect or not, is agreed upon by those who chose to live in the country it governs. If you benefit from the system, then you should respect its rules. His references to morality were made only in direct response to the kid's challenges.

halodrake

12-29-2004, 08:22 PM

Actually, I wasn't even talking about his piracy, or any of that ethical mumbo-jumbo. I'm against it, and I think anyone who wants to get into the shareware game *should* be against it. Mainly because it turns you into a hypocrite if you try and sell something you made with stuff you got for free.

Nope, I was just making a comment on his high-school level pop philsophy way of looking at life. If he was making intellegant remarks about the ethics of piracy, then it would all be different to me. But it's just something about the way he talks (or writes, rather) that makes me lose all respect for anything he ever says.

Mark Fassett

12-29-2004, 08:33 PM

Heh - it probably hasn't been locked because either no one has reported it, or all the mods looked at the title and went "nothing to see there, move along".

Anthony Flack

12-29-2004, 10:04 PM

But it's just something about the way he talks (or writes, rather) that makes me lose all respect for anything he ever says.

Yes, that much is obvious. He's 14 years old and you guys just hate that. He's made a few reasonable points and gotten rubbished in return. He harmlessly quotes a song lyric and you guys are falling over yourselves to show how much contempt you have for him.

I think this is an important discussion. We all are in the business of selling IP, so it's something that affects us all. That's probably why it hasn't been locked yet, but unfortunately it looks like it's heading that way. The subject deserves a better discussion than this.

Is your patronizing judging any different?

I wasn't being patronising.

Anthony Flack

12-29-2004, 10:11 PM

Back on track, perhaps:

the "law of the land", perfect or not, is agreed upon by those who chose to live in the country it governs. If you benefit from the system, then you should respect its rules.

That's law, not morality though (presuming we're talking about a democracy here). Laws get decided by majority decision (sort of), it's true. The second part is more interesting though... care to elaborate on this? What about if you don't benefit from the system? What if you benefit more from not respecting the rules? Why is the question of whether you benefit or not important?

Anthony Flack

12-29-2004, 10:13 PM

it turns you into a hypocrite if you try and sell something you made with stuff you got for free.

Does it, though? I would think it would only turn you into a hypocrite if you, in turn, agressively prosecuted people who used your work to make derivative works in a similar manner.

Ricardo C

12-29-2004, 10:48 PM

What about if you don't benefit from the system?

You benefit from it every time your exercise your rights as established and proteced in the law, every time you make use of a facility or service made possible by tax money, and, more specifically to this discussion, every time your creative rights are protected by the law you despise so much.

What if you benefit more from not respecting the rules?

Then you're violating the rights of the rest of the community and they must be protected.

Why is the question of whether you benefit or not important?

Because if there's no respect for the law, the "system", including those nice rights and protections you don't mind exercising, collapse. I'm sure that's fine and dandy for armchair anarchists who have never actually had to live through a complete breakdown of society, but for those of us who've had even a taste of it, it's a different matter.

Does it, though? I would think it would only turn you into a hypocrite if you, in turn, agressively prosecuted people who used your work to make derivative works in a similar manner.

Wrong. It turns you into a hypocrite the second you make use of copyright law to protect your work while you refuse to respect someone else's use of the same.

luggage

12-30-2004, 03:54 AM

Does it, though? I would think it would only turn you into a hypocrite if you, in turn, agressively prosecuted people who used your work to make derivative works in a similar manner.

Wrong. It turns you into a hypocrite the second you make use of copyright law to protect your work while you refuse to respect someone else's use of the same.

Making use of copyright law requires you prosecute and you enforce the law. So when you say "the second you make use of copyright law to protect your work" you're talking about prosecuting people?

I'd agree with the first quote. If one person abuses the copyright, and in turn they don't mind if someone abuses their copyright, where's the hypocrisy?

halodrake

12-30-2004, 05:51 AM

Yes, that much is obvious. He's 14 years old and you guys just hate that. He's made a few reasonable points and gotten rubbished in return. He harmlessly quotes a song lyric and you guys are falling over yourselves to show how much contempt you have for him.

Are you reading the same posts as me? Interesting points? Where? I don't care what age he is- that's no excuse.

Does it, though? I would think it would only turn you into a hypocrite if you, in turn, agressively prosecuted people who used your work to make derivative works in a similar manner.

No. What I meant by *free* was pirated software. If he wants to sell shareware games, he's expecting people to do what he did not, which is pay for something that someone had worked on. If he didn't pay for it, then why should anyone pay for what he does? Why shouldn't people pirate his software? If he pirates software, and then someone pirates his software, he has no leg to stand on. Not to add in the fact that he's stealing money from people and keeping it for himself.

Ricardo- well said.

rodent

12-30-2004, 05:58 AM

It is perfectly legal to edit sounds into new ones.

Laws are made by an extremely small minority.

Capitalism promotes constant search for profitable holes in laws and regulations.

May the one who hasn't used non-licensed software or media please stand up.

rodent

12-30-2004, 06:01 AM

If he wants to sell shareware games, he's expecting people to do what he did not, which is pay for something that someone had worked on.

I think this fellow told a number of times that he makes games for his ~15 friends.

Not to add in the fact that he's stealing money from people and keeping it for himself.

Obviously he is not stealing money.

EpicBoy

12-30-2004, 06:25 AM

As for morality being defined by whatever the majority agrees with - I don't think so. Reasoned philosophical enquiry would be a better bet.
Ideally, yes. Realistically, no.

EpicBoy

12-30-2004, 06:27 AM

He's 14 years old and you guys just hate that.
So now we're jealous of a 14 year old? WTF? I'm not going back to high school, sorry.

Doesn't matter what age you are - act like an idiot and you're going to get smacked down.

Ricardo C

12-30-2004, 06:45 AM

Making use of copyright law requires you prosecute and you enforce the law. So when you say "the second you make use of copyright law to protect your work" you're talking about prosecuting people?

"Copyright 2003 Squashy Software. All rights reserved"

That notice is on Anthony's website. I consider that making use of copyright law to notify would-be thieves that his works are legally protected. If he were to rip work from another game without permission and then retain the copyright notices for his own work, I would call him a hypocrite.

Ricardo C

12-30-2004, 06:54 AM

Yes, that much is obvious. He's 14 years old and you guys just hate that.

Can you explain the logic behind this assesment?

I gave him constructive feedback when he first asked about the quality of his game graphics. Then warned him it might not be in his best interest to blab about ripping sound fx from other games to put into his own. Then he admitted to using pirated software and cracking games. Sorry, I thought this was a developers' community, and as such, someone proudly proclaiming their disregard for such things as actually paying for your games would be frowned upon.

He's made a few reasonable points and gotten rubbished in return.

Which were? "If I break the law and don't get caught, does it still matter?" Whoa, heavy.

He harmlessly quotes a song lyric and you guys are falling over yourselves to show how much contempt you have for him.

He refused constructive debate by quoting trite lyrics from a trio of millionaires who still try to sell themselves as a sign of rebellion. Bold! And even if he had quoted the most relevant, important, deepest philosopher on the planet, answering an argument with a quote means he either lacks the desire to have a serious discussion, or lacks the arguments to do so.

I think this is an important discussion. We all are in the business of selling IP, so it's something that affects us all. That's probably why it hasn't been locked yet, but unfortunately it looks like it's heading that way. The subject deserves a better discussion than this.

Elevate the level of discussion, then, instead of trying to play dad and telling us what bad bad bullies we're being.

I wasn't being patronising.

I wasn't beeing sneering or condescending.

halodrake

12-30-2004, 07:02 AM

Obviously he is not stealing money.

1. These are shareware forums. The authors who post here are generally shareware authors, and as such, expect to make money by selling there games in a shareware format.

2. He has said, repeatedly, that he pirates software and uses it to make games (this is different from the arguement before, when we were talking about somebodies right to modify content in order to make new content. He is using a tool designed by someone else to make his content. And not paying for the tool. These two concepts are different)

3. Since he is not paying for the tools, the authors (most likely also shareware authors) are not getting money from him.

4. Since he is posting on this forum, then by (1) we can assume he is planning to sell these games.

5. By selling these games people will be giving him money. He is making money from using tools he did not pay for. Therefore, instead of the money being distubuted equally and to the right authors, he is keeping all of it. He is stealing the money from them, by keeping it for himself.

luggage

12-30-2004, 07:10 AM

"Copyright 2003 Squashy Software. All rights reserved"

That notice is on Anthony's website. I consider that making use of copyright law to notify would-be thieves that his works are legally protected. If he were to rip work from another game without permission and then retain the copyright notices for his own work, I would call him a hypocrite.
Guess we differ then, I don't consider that 'making use of a law'. A law means nothing unless it's enforced. When you enforce a law then you're making use of it.

Works are legally protected by default so writing "Copyright" on something isn't exactly making use of a law even in your argument.

luggage

12-30-2004, 07:14 AM

halodrake: that argument wouldn't stand up in a court of law if you took him to court for "stealing".

Breaking copyright law and theft are two different things. You break Copyright law by making unlawful copies, duplicates if you like. Theft is removal of someone's property.

ie. making a copy of a game is breaking copyright law.
going into someone's house and stealing their version of the game is theft.

If you can't see the difference between the two then I worry.

Ricardo C

12-30-2004, 07:31 AM

Guess we differ then, I don't consider that 'making use of a law'. A law means nothing unless it's enforced. When you enforce a law then you're making use of it.

So none of us is using free speech until someone tries to restrict us and the law has to be enforced?

Works are legally protected by default so writing "Copyright" on something isn't exactly making use of a law even in your argument.

They're protected by... What? The law, right? Copyright isn't a "natural" right, and so only exists so long as it is protected by law. Making use of it, even by merely slapping a © on your website, you're acknowledging and yes, using copyright law to your benefit.

luggage

12-30-2004, 08:32 AM

So none of us is using free speech until someone tries to restrict us and the law has to be enforced?

Exactly! Until then you're just talking :) It doesn't become an issue of free speech until someone tries to restrict you.

GBGames

12-30-2004, 08:52 AM

In my experience, the majority of people think piracy is A-OK as long as it is easy to do (eg. BitTorrent, pre-lawsuit Napster, etc). So are you sure you want to use that as the measuring stick?

And once again the argument that "well everyone else is doing it" fails to be valid. B-)

Anthony Flack

12-30-2004, 08:54 AM

Are we still talking about modifying a sound effect, or about pirating apps? Because I was hopefully pretty clear that I was endorsing only the former. And that this is not hypocritical because they are quite different things (and it's a shame that this aspect of the argument doesn't seem to be much of a focus any more).

We're back to the law again. And the argument about how you have to respect the law in its totality if you wish to benefit from a law-abiding society - come on. I bet there's not a single person here who hasn't broken the law and gotten away with it on numerous occasions. And we should all be glad for that. You wouldn't want to live in a world where you got caught and fined every time you jaywalked on anything that was technically a road, for example. The law isn't intended to be pursued to absurd extremes. It's there to be applied only when things get out of hand.

I'm not promoting lawlessness. But I am saying deference to law shouldn't override common sense.

And, well, maybe it was stretching it a bit to say that Bedroomcoder made some good points. What he did was just inject some reality into a debate that appeared starved of it. Such as:

I have done some things before which are probably a lot more dodgy than editing and using a few sound effects, and I don't generally think theres going to be Internet police, scouring the Internet for B-list Shareware games, finding the authors and quizzing them over their sound effects. (If there was I would probably take my game off the web, modify the sound some more and then reupload it.)

My game will probably be played by a grand total of 15 people, and so far, all the people who've played it I have known personally (no, not parents or grandparents) and they are not sound-effect-legal-fanatics.

And he said some dumb stuff too. The Green Day quote was probably just a misjudged attempt to lighten the mood, but when the scorn started piling on and nobody did anything to mitigate it, it felt like some kind of community consensus. I felt embarassed by association, so I had to say something. I'm not trying to be the Internet Dad.

Epicboy - jealous? No, what made you think I meant jealous?

Ricardo C

12-30-2004, 09:06 AM

I'm not promoting lawlessness. But I am saying deference to law shouldn't override common sense.

I agree on this. But how do you determine when "common sense" becomes "absurd overzealousness"? My fianceé's father was stopped for speeding as he rushed to the hospital when she was hospitalized as a toddler. The police officer listened to his explanation and decided to escort him to the hospital. The person designated to enforce the law made a judgement call and decided this man didn't deserve a fine.

Now, who makes such judgement calls when the potential conflict is between two private entities? Oh hey, here's an idea: "Dear developer, I'm a no-budget aspiring dev, and am in desperate need of a suitable shotgun sound effect. Is there any chance you could allow me to borrow the effect used in your game?" As I said earlier, I've done this before, and the artist was kind enough to grant me access to five outstanding game-ready models which I was then able to customize to my needs.

If the whole point of common sense is to avoid needless litigation, then why not show a modicum of respect for the copyright holder (whether you agree with current copyright law or not)? If nicking a shotgun effect is as small as BC and you make it out to be, then surely asking for permission is not a big deal.

And, well, maybe it was stretching it a bit to say that Bedroomcoder made some good points. What he did was just inject some reality into a debate that appeared starved of it. Such as:

I have done some things before which are probably a lot more dodgy than editing and using a few sound effects, and I don't generally think theres going to be Internet police, scouring the Internet for B-list Shareware games, finding the authors and quizzing them over their sound effects. (If there was I would probably take my game off the web, modify the sound some more and then reupload it.)

I'm not sure about you, but to me that reads "I don't think I'm gonna get caught for this, but if I were, I still wouldn't contact the owner of the effect in question, I'd just modify it some more." What's so insightful about this?

My game will probably be played by a grand total of 15 people, and so far, all the people who've played it I have known personally (no, not parents or grandparents) and they are not sound-effect-legal-fanatics.

"My would-be customers don't give a toss about the legality of my game data, so that makes it ok for me to nick them from other games."

I'm really not seeing the wisdom in his self-serving excuses.

EpicBoy

12-30-2004, 09:07 AM

Epicboy - jealous? No, what made you think I meant jealous?
If you didn't mean jealousy, I fail to see how his being 14 would cause me to "hate that".

halodrake

12-30-2004, 09:56 AM

halodrake: that argument wouldn't stand up in a court of law if you took him to court for "stealing".

Where did I mention a court of law? I'm not talking about going to trial, but instead the social aspects of what he is doing.

Breaking copyright law and theft are two different things. You break Copyright law by making unlawful copies, duplicates if you like. Theft is removal of someone's property.

Right, but if you looked at the train of logic, him stealing an App, then using said App to make a project that makes money is stealing money from the hands of those that made the App. The *someone else's property* in this aspect would be the money that is rightfully theres. By paying the author for using an application (esp when you are using that proffesionally to make money) you are continuing a distrubution of wealth. A portion of your money went to pay for the App, which helped you make money in the first place. By not giving them the portion they deserve, you are stealing from them.

ie. making a copy of a game is breaking copyright law.
going into someone's house and stealing their version of the game is theft.

But, let's say I'm a manager of a large software corperation and I hire out these 20 people to make this program for me. I demand payment only upon delivery, and then when delivery comes I take the software and then sell it without paying them. Is this right? Wouldn't I be stealing from these developers?

Pirating software to make games is the same thing.

If you can't see the difference between the two then I worry.

And I worry about those selfish enough to not realize what they are putting other people through.

GBGames

12-30-2004, 10:37 AM

Right, but if you looked at the train of logic, him stealing an App, then using said App to make a project that makes money is stealing money from the hands of those that made the App.

That's not a train of logic, unless you mean a derailed one. If I pirate Photoshop and then make something with it, how does Adobe's money enter into my hands?

halodrake

12-30-2004, 11:44 AM

It's not a train wreck. It's not all that complicated, it's basic micro economics and the concept of resources.

See the example above about the manager hiring a team of programmers and not paying them. By using Adobe's software, you've hired them to program something for you (in a relative sense) and are using the end result without paying them. The main difference being that Adobe is selling the software en-masse and expecting each user to contribute to their software dept sales. By not contributing, you are stealing from them. You are stealing the time that went into the project, your peice of the pie, so to speak.

EpicBoy

12-30-2004, 11:58 AM

That's not a train of logic, unless you mean a derailed one. If I pirate Photoshop and then make something with it, how does Adobe's money enter into my hands?
Adobe's money never left your hands. That's the point and the problem.

Anthony Flack

12-30-2004, 09:23 PM

If you didn't mean jealousy, I fail to see how his being 14 would cause me to "hate that"

I mean in an "annoying kids" kind of way. Before you know it, our nice, serious adult forum is being overrun by teenage wannabes with their hip-hop music and baggy trousers, and people are starting to write stuff like "kewl" and "d00dz" - that kind of "hate that". It was an undercurrent of this kind of hostility that I was referring to. But that's alll done and said now, so I don't want to go on about it.

As far as contacting copyright holders, that's fine if it's practical to do so, but it often isn't. For example, in my game I use heavily modified bitmap versions of two fonts I got off the internet.

The first one was listed as free for non-commercial use. Since I was intending it for commercial use, I contacted the author and made an arrangement with him (hope he's not expecting the free copy of the finished game any time soon...)

The second was simply listed as "freeware" and had no contact information. It was just what I was looking for, so I decided to believe the claim of "freeware" and used it. But who made it? Where did it come from? What is its true legal status? I will probably never know. But anyway, it's been heavily modified and bitmapped. I'm not worried about it.

And then there was my "coffee cup" example. I don't have time to track down and get permission from the author of every little snippet like this, even if I could. In the book I posted a link to, there is a part that talks about a documentary filmmaker who made a retrospective of a certain actor. And this documentary ended up being delayed for a year, incurring huge expense, and was almost shelved - because the law required the filmmaker to get permission from every single actor and extra that appeared in every film clip used in the retrospective.

So asking permission is fine when it's practical - but sometimes it's just not possible, and other times it's prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

Now, to add further fuel to the fire, what do you people think about this (http://www.hermitgames.com/mariopac.php)?

It's quite clearly infringing. Asking permission (from notorious IP zealots Nintendo and Rare) would have certainly resulted in a "hell no" if you were lucky, and a "see you in court" if not. So, is this harmless fan art, or is it evil copyright infringement, corrupter of youth and destroyer of civilisation?

And why is it, that on these forums people will emphatically defend the right to take someone else's game design from top to bottom and use it for themselves, and yet the idea of sampling so much as a teensy smidgeon of digital data is regarded as wholly unacceptable?

I hope it isn't all simply down to that technical point of law. (nb: I don't want to see game designs patented in order to protect them, as this would lead to the same kind of abuse as we see with copyright, and of course all those notorious examples of ludicrous software patents. So in this case, I'm saying it's best not to get the law involved; all I expected was for developers to collectively say, "hey, shame on you" instead of "hey, good for you")

Ricardo C

12-30-2004, 11:12 PM

I mean in an "annoying kids" kind of way. Before you know it, our nice, serious adult forum is being overrun by teenage wannabes with their hip-hop music and baggy trousers, and people are starting to write stuff like "kewl" and "d00dz" - that kind of "hate that". It was an undercurrent of this kind of hostility that I was referring to. But that's alll done and said now, so I don't want to go on about it.

You say it like it's a bad thing ;) Come on, Anthony, join us old foggies in asking those damn kids to get off our lawn!

So asking permission is fine when it's practical - but sometimes it's just not possible, and other times it's prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

So essentially, it comes down to "can I be bothered to ask for permission?" If it's not practical for you to make the effort to ask for permission to use an asset with a known copyrigh holder, then you're in the wrong, legally, and ethically. To use your coffee cup example, are you telling me it would take you more than five minutes to find a public domain photograph from which you could extract a coffee cup? How long would it take ou to grab your digital camera and snap a shot of your own cup?

Now, to add further fuel to the fire, what do you people think about this?

It's quite clearly infringing. Asking permission (from notorious IP zealots Nintendo and Rare) would have certainly resulted in a "hell no" if you were lucky, and a "see you in court" if not. So, is this harmless fan art, or is it evil copyright infringement, corrupter of youth and destroyer of civilisation?

The game is in violation of Nintendo's copyright, and although many copyright holders are tolerant of non-commercial derivative works, the authors of the game should be aware that they are at Nintendo's mercy on this one. Look at what happened to the guys that were making an unofficial sequel to Square's Chrono Trigger franchise. I regret that Square-Enix wasn't more tolerant, especially considering they have let the franchise fall into limbo, at least in the Western market, but that doesn't mean they were not within their rights to protect their property, even if the unofficial game wasn't going to "corrupt youth and destroy civilization."

And why is it, that on these forums people will emphatically defend the right to take someone else's game design from top to bottom and use it for themselves, and yet the idea of sampling so much as a teensy smidgeon of digital data is regarded as wholly unacceptable?

Ideas are by no means exclusive to any one individual. Game content, or the implementation of a given idea, is unique. No one can stop me from making a claymation-based game, but I'm not allowed to make use of your implementation of the same. I can't take your graphics or sound or code without permission. I would like to think this is common sense talking, rather than just the law.

I hope it isn't all simply down to that technical point of law. (nb: I don't want to see game designs patented in order to protect them, as this would lead to the same kind of abuse as we see with copyright, and of course all those notorious examples of ludicrous software patents. So in this case, I'm saying it's best not to get the law involved; all I expected was for developers to collectively say, "hey, shame on you" instead of "hey, good for you")

Isn't that what happened here? Am I misreading you here?

Omega

12-31-2004, 09:39 AM

What's so hard about copyright law? That aura of copyright law is the only way 95% of the software developers can get paid. They can't create exclusive Digital Rights Management systems. A lot of us don't want to.

You make something digital. You are being artistic and whatnot. You offer people the product to install/watch/play/use for $20. Great! Copyright law protects you, and people can make copies if they ask you, pay you, or wait for the protection to expire (the length of which might be shortened for software in the upcoming years.)

That 15-year-old lawyer wanna-be isn't being logical by law nor ethical by morals. In other words, he is anti-social. This is actually very, very bad. We couldn't care less about what he does in his own free time, it's just that his speech here on a respected developers forum could be misinterpreted by others to sound like he's an actual developer doing what he is doing, that everybody does it, etc. THAT's the problem seen here, not that fans use fan art!