Utter b0ll0x

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

If you're calling me a poof, that's borderline libel, that is

I box, you wrestle...is all that needs to be said.

Maximilian wrote:

Now you're getting hung up on my words. I was simply providing a specific example of how altering copyrighted material is legal. I'm only trying to educate you.

Can you get any more condescending? Pretty please? My point was -and remains- that, in respect of you stating that one should not be hung-up about the "necessary" character of why one may legally alter copyrighted material, my reply is that this "necessary" character defines the very (elastic) border between fair use and unfair use. Such that yes, you should be hung-up about the word, it's importance and its (elastic) interpretation by the Courts over time.

Maximilian wrote:

I assume you are trying to say that Copyright is not about the almighty dollar at the end of the day.

No I'm not. If an IP owner is so concerned about the financial value of his IP, he'll go for registrable IP. Copyright itself has no intrinsic value until that value is assessed in a Court of Law (unless it is registered, but that's only valid in the US). Surely a 5-year-qualified solicitor knows that. So when Tecmo is going after the modders, sure, it's about $$$. Not $$$ off the modders, because they surely don't have much, but $$$ in the sense alluded to by NekkidBibleMan: (eventual) lost revenue through denaturation of the work.

Maximilian wrote:

This might interest you, young man.

Not remotely.

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

lol - I'm sure you were probably making a point there somewhere. Let's just assume you were.

Let me labout it out for you, since it's a Friday and you're visibly becoming challenged: most mods (most as in a very vast majority) are created for FPSs. Hence, there's little need for the developers to get all bothered about mods, because
1) it's all about shooting and that's that, semi-novel USPs to the contrary or not, and
2) considering how crowded the genre is, there's certainly nothing wrong (for the developer) with having the next must-have/must-experience prosumer-developed mod (that cost the developer nothing to develop) prop up the title at retail.

po0k

ambro25 wrote:

Not $$$ off the modders, because they surely don't have much, but $$$ in the sense alluded to by NekkidBibleMan: (eventual) lost revenue through denaturation of the work.

I think that would be hard to prove, given the majority of the fanbase and the popularity of the mod (it caused a pretty big blip on Tecmo's radar).
If I were defending the modders in court I'd have a stab at proving that it aided sales revenue figures for Tecmo by generating further sales and promotion of the game,or something to that effect.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

I box, you wrestle...is all that needs to be said.

I'm sure you actually meant to say that you x-box

ambro25 wrote:

Can you get any more condescending? Pretty please? My point was -and remains- that, in respect of you stating that one should not be hung-up about the "necessary" character of why one may legally alter copyrighted material, my reply is that this "necessary" character defines the very (elastic) border between fair use and unfair use. Such that yes, you should be hung-up about the word, it's importance and its (elastic) interpretation by the Courts over time.

Yes, if you like, I can be more condescending, you odious teenager. Again, to repeat myself: The particular section quoted does not govern all permitted use of copyrighted material. It demonstrates a legal and permitted use of copyrighted material.

If you're so fanatically convinced that you're correct, then I suggest you take yourself over to www.gov.ie and frothily foam all over the text of the Act, you rabid child.

BTW, Quit using the word elastic, its giving me a headache. Elastic is something your beleaguered mother stiches little name tags onto. "These y-fronts belong to..." etc.

No I'm not. If an IP owner is so concerned about the financial value of his IP, he'll go for registrable IP. Copyright itself has no intrinsic value until that value is assessed in a Court of Law (unless it is registered, but that's only valid in the US). Surely a 5-year-qualified solicitor knows that. So when Tecmo is going after the modders, sure, it's about $$$. Not $$$ off the modders, because they surely don't have much, but $$$ in the sense alluded to by NekkidBibleMan: (eventual) lost revenue through denaturation of the work.

Not all IP is registerable. If it were, I would patent the word "elastic" and stop you using it. My headache is worsening. I am in need of beer. This goes some way to explaining why your poetry schoolbook does not feature "Daffodils®" by William wordsworth.

Not remotely.

Nonetheless, it is educational. That kind of attitude won't get you very far in your McCareer now, will it?

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Let me labout it out for you, since it's a Friday and you're visibly becoming challenged: most mods (most as in a very vast majority) are created for FPSs. Hence, there's little need for the developers to get all bothered about mods, because
1) it's all about shooting and that's that, semi-novel USPs to the contrary or not, and
2) considering how crowded the genre is, there's certainly nothing wrong (for the developer) with having the next must-have/must-experience prosumer-developed mod (that cost the developer nothing to develop) prop up the title at retail.

Name me a genre that doesn't have a multitude of mods. Its not an FPS exclusive phenomenon. Regardless, what has any of that got to do with the legality or not of modding. That glue is doing you permanent damage, boy.

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

I'm sure you actually meant to say that you x-box

Cute. But not quite. and you wish.

(cue images of fat attorney developing a physical inferiority complex, as a matter of fact) .

Maximilian wrote:

The particular section quoted does not govern all permitted use of copyrighted material. It demonstrates a legal and permitted use of copyrighted material. If you're so fanatically convinced that you're correct, then I suggest you take yourself over to www.gov.ie and frothily foam all over the text of the Act, you rabid child.

No need, you dense protozoid. If you are going to quote extracts of the Act, be prepared to receive comments appropriate to the quote - which is what you received from me. If you want us to discuss the virtues and perils of copyright protection and fair use outside the realm of this here Tecmo-centric thread, by all means I'm your man and we can elevate the scope of the debate to the entire Act - not just bits and bobs you quote, rather inappropriately at that. Just not here.

Maximilian wrote:

BTW, Quit using the word elastic, its giving me a headache. Elastic is something your beleaguered mother stiches little name tags onto. "These y-fronts belong to..." etc.

elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic elastic :rolleyes:

Maximilian wrote:

Not all IP is registerable.

No sh1t, Sherlock! Good job I reminded you copyright is not, though, innit?!

Maximilian wrote:

If it were, I would patent the word "elastic" and stop you using it.

Have a go at patenting a word - just for a laugh - dare you

Maximilian wrote:

That kind of attitude won't get you very far in your McCareer now, will it?

My "McCareer"...mmm...funny that. You should go for TM protection

po0k

Lads, stfu.

You're embarressing yourselves.

Maximilian

Agreed. I've had my fun and that's all that matters

KdjaCL

Oh the legalities of mods , a subject dear to my heart.

1st off this is a very stupid move by Tecmo its a lawsuit they will lose and therefore piss off a lot of people who will in turn create tonnes more mods.

Bottom line you buy a game its yours, if you find a way to modify the game (ie your game) you are completley entitled to it , IF you create a mod that others may like you are entitled to host and share this mod legally. IF you profit from said mod you are breaching TOS EULA etc: and thats illegal.

Tecmo will lose this if the ninjahackers(NH for future post) have a decent solicitor. But about this type of modding assuming they replacing skins with textures they created they can copyright the skins and textures just like any other copyrightable thing (think DC for BF) now if a skin is say 10 textures attached to a model with a script, if NH used 1 of the original files ie the script and released that onto the web they will lose.

Its not such a grey area anymore as it used to be, but if they are using and hosting 100% custom content they will win.

I got this from when i admined a modding website , an EA and an Activison lawyer were such a pleasure in divulging the finer details of such issues. The issue we had was one guy converted a map (q3 engine) from one game to another we hosted it in good faith unknowing he had used the textures from the other game (RTCW), legally Activison could only sue for the guy reusing their textures without consent, EA who made MOH could only stop us hosting the file as it contained another IPs textures.
The map and any other mod we hosted were perfectly legal regardless of content we had nakie skins too.


kdjac

ambro25

Very good point.

Presumably, NH do indeed own the copyright in the nakie skins, provided that they created them themselves and did not simply rip existing Tecmo ones (e.g. the base 'skin tone' skin) & mod same (add the...hohum... hair ).

However, Tecmo own the copyright in the game which uses the nakie skins (e.g. the instructions which process the skins to map those on 3D model and render same out to video) and therefore -presumably- the portion of NH code in the patch lifted from the original Tecmo IP to make the xbox use their skins.

("presumably" - it's impossible to be categorical without knowing if/what portion of Tecmo copyrighted code the NH patch uses.)

The existence of both NH and Tecmo copyrights (and there are many, many more, but I'm keeping it simple) is not mutually exclusive. Kdjac, your point in respect of fair use is totally valid in respect of buying the game and doing WTF you want with it.

My interpretation (which engages only me and which I'm not forcing on anyone, unlike posts attempting to force their disagreeing POV on me) of IE copyright law is that sharing what you have done with it, however, is not fair use. US copyright law, and the DMCA especially, are totally different animals to the IE Copyright Act.

There is however no case law yet for such a case that I'm aware of, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see. As was previously posted in here before, the reason why there is no case law is in all probability because such suits have so far been totally one-sided in terms of resources, so no modders have gone the distance, understandably.

If Tecmo were on the ball (and the money), they'd hire those guys and make money with a bona fide porn version via an arms-length subsidiary.

SyxPak - only insofar as Maximilian ran out of arguments/justifications and had to resort to puerile jibs, which -in fairness to you- I shouldn't even have bothered to address, true.

Maximilian - gotta hook up for a beer sometimes and finish this outta here (preferably once there is a court decision to debate

sceptre

Maximilian wrote:

That's like saying that making a minuture paper mache cock, attaching it to Barbies "front bottom" and displaying it for the world to see is copyright infirngement etc.

Well obviously not as it's parody (the "Hooker Barbie" case came before the 9th Circuit in 1998 IIRC). Obviously different if you put Hooker Barbie in a Barbie box and sell it as a Barbie.

KdjaCL

ambro25 wrote:

However, Tecmo own the copyright in the game which uses the nakie skins (e.g. the instructions which process the skins to map those on 3D model and render same out to video) and therefore -presumably- the portion of NH code in the patch lifted from the original Tecmo IP to make the xbox use their skins.

This is done via 3d modelling program 3ds, Maya Milkshape etc: , you either create a plugin which exports into the games file format (clever people do this) or the game makers release the plugin themselves, Tecmo obviously didnt release it so if its a user made plugin most usually are then again once the mod is 100% user created tecmo can do nowt.

If the plugin is tecmos and was "acquired" somehow NH are ****ed.

kdjac

Maximilian

sceptre wrote:

Well obviously not as it's parody (the "Hooker Barbie" case came before the 9th Circuit in 1998 IIRC). Obviously different if you put Hooker Barbie in a Barbie box and sell it as a Barbie.

Obviously Actually, you hit on a good point there. Parody is a clear example of fair use and a transformative use (allowed use of copyright material). I think you could easily argue the nude skins is parody -
the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule.


Ambro - US & our copyright law is fundementally the same. As are our defamation laws for that matter. One thing I'd add though - Tecmo are Japanese I think and Copyright Law is far more strict over there. I think A Japanese Court once ruled that developers own the copyright to screenshots, which I think is a bit mad.

I think they'll find things a litttle different in the US. In the US, the position is largely governed by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This doesn't stop people from hacking software they legally own, it stops people from distributing tools for hacking the software itself (in order to safeguard the fair use of software). In other words, you have to be a Hacker to benefit from it. In my opinion, Tecmo's case would likely fail in a US Court if its grounded on this issue alone. They'd win in a Japanese one though.

My insults weren't peurile - I thought they were quite inventive

Until that Court judgement then

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

Ambro - US & our copyright law is fundementally the same.

True (to an extent), but not so of the interpretation.

And particularly "not-quite-so-true" since the DMCA (would have agreed to sameness witout any reserve before) and the continuing efforts by copyrights-holders to 'stretch' and 'road-test' this new piece of legislation.

Bearing in mind the established case law on the back of the Amstrad case in UK (and Europe generally) vs. the initially-successful but weakening attempts at fair use defense in high-profile P2P US cases, I'd say Tecmo are no different, in terms of the scope of this action, from the MPAA suing the a** off eDonkey or the like - their advice was possibly to have go, to see if the interpretation of the new DMCA may 'overturn' established fair-use case law.

Looking fwd to the decision all the same, have a piece of bona fide work that'll need some serious update irrespective of the outcome.

'Til that decision indeed, Maximilian