Utter b0ll0x

Maximilian

This is very high-brow debate for the games forum, innit?

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

Actually it is my "qualified" opinion, as a solicitor, which I am.

Then I am doubly...nay...quadruply surprised at your position. You're not a junior, by any chance, are you?

Maximilian wrote:

This might be of interest, its just one section

Let's go

Maximilian wrote:

Copyright & Related Rights Act, 2000

BTW, is this the IE Act or elsewhere?

Maximilian wrote:

82.—(1) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a computer program for a lawful user of a copy of the computer program to make a permanent or temporary copy of the whole or a part of the program by any means and in any form or to translate, adapt or arrange or in any other way alter the computer program where such actions are necessary for the use of the program by the lawful user in accordance with its intended purpos, including error correction.

Next thing, you're going to argue:

1) that it's necessary for the DoA:BV avatars to be naked
2) that the intended purpose of the game dictates a nude patch
3) that bikinis are a manifest programming error, there should never have been any in the first place?

Maximilian wrote:

(2) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a computer program for a lawful user of a copy of the computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, where he or she does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he or she is authorised to do.

Explain to me where the "modders developing a nude patch and posting it for public availability and use" fits in with the above. Particularly, where:

1) "observe, study or test the functioning of the program" matches "in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program" in the context of -say- DoA:BV

2) "any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program" includes decompiling

Maximilian wrote:

(I wouldn't get hung-up on the use if the word "necessary")

As a qualified solicitor, I'd expect you to get hung-up on every word of the Article. Which practice did you say?

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

This is very high-brow debate for the games forum, innit?

Yeah, but WTF cares? I'm enjoying myself and if anything, it shows some gamers do have a brain (though most posters herein would of course disagree in my humbly particular case ). This is what I meant by a debate, earlier on - e.g. formulate an argument, string together sentences of 3+ words, you know...

po0k

I'm enjoying myself

Tis pleasurable to engage the oul noodle once in a while.
I didn't expect this thread to get this much attention though.

ambro25

SyxPak wrote:

There was tabloid hysteria about the fabled nude-cheat in the Tomb Raider series too. It didn't hurt sales as much as the declining quality of the gameplay did for the later instalments.

But note the difference: the cheat (if there was one) was programmed by the developer, as an Easter Egg / in prevision of a Marketing coup / etc.

So in a similar situation, the TR developer could never, ever have invoked the grounds which Tecmo have in this case, since there was an element of intention.

Moreover, it was a bit more difficult to Internet-connect (or even PC-interface) Saturns or PS1 in those days than it is an xbox.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Then I am doubly...nay...quadruply surprised at your position. You're not a junior, by any chance, are you?

No, 5 years qualified, good-looking, in my own practice with a partner and about 6'4". Wanna wrestle? As for you; you suggesting that modding a game in a way the developers disliked is Defamation, which is laughable. No, doubt you would bring a latex dildo to a knife fight.

BTW, is this the IE Act or elsewhere?

It is the Irish Act implementing an EU Directive. Look it up.

Next thing, you're going to argue:

1) that it's necessary for the DoA:BV avatars to be naked
2) that the intended purpose of the game dictates a nude patch
3) that bikinis are a manifest programming error, there should never have been any in the first place?

"Necessary" is a subjective word. It depends on your objective.There's a whole body of law on this subject. That is but one Section of one piece of legislation. Quoted by way of example. There is no Modding of Computer Games (Nude Patches) Act, 2005. Unless, there is something expressly forbidding the creatiion of the mod in the EULA (no, nothing like hula hoops, I'm afraid. Not a crisp at all, in fact) then this practice is legal. You may have noticed a number of other mods in existance. Note the lack of legal proceedings relating thereto.

As a qualified solicitor, I'd expect you to get hung-up on every word of the Article. Which practice did you say?

If you had an iota of understanding on the subject you would know that words are open to interpretation by the Courts, although sometime are construed strictly. The thrust of copyright law, is to prevent people from using other people's IP to make money for themselves. That's it in a nutshell. This is not the case here.

As for which practice, I'll not divulge that lest you and your schoolfriends start mailing me pokemon, dipped in cat sh!t or whatever it is you crazy kids get up to at night.

stevenmu

Maximilian wrote:

This is very high-brow debate for the games forum, innit?

I wonder if the people making long considered posts are more inclined towards strategy games and the posters saying things like "That's s**t" etc are FPS "twitch" gamers ?

ambro25 wrote:

No, you cannot protect cars (or any other object, unless it's a statue or a building) by copyright, trust me on that. But copyright is what you use to protect games.

I did mention that they have patents instead, legally I suppose they're quite different, but to me from a practical point of view they're very similar.

ambro25 wrote:

Nope, that's where it all goes wrong. $$$ damages has nothing to do with it: if the modders hadn't publicized it, Tecmo would never even have batted an eyelid.

AFAIK all the court can do is make an award based on the monetary damage suffered by Tecmo as a result of their actions. I'd predict that ultimatly Tecmo will suffer more in damaged reputation than they ever did as a result of these patches (which probably had a positive net effect on sales if anything). I vaguely remember a case (altough it may have been in England,where the law would obviously be different ) where a company couldn't prove it had suffered any damage as a result of copywrite infringement. The case was kicked out, and they had to pay both sides costs.

po0k

stevenmu wrote:

I wonder if the people making long considered posts are more inclined towards strategy games and the posters saying things like "That's s**t" etc are FPS "twitch" gamers ?

Fans of The Sims series of mass-produced excrement.

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

No, 5 years qualified, good-looking, in my own practice with a partner and about 6'4". Wanna wrestle?

I don't wrestle, that's for fairies. I box, that's for gents.

Maximilian wrote:

As for you; you suggesting that modding a game in a way the developers disliked is Defamation, which is laughable.

No, I suggested that modding the game in the way they have is defamatory. There is the not-so-inconsiderable matter of context.

Maximilian wrote:

It is the Irish Act implementing an EU Directive. Look it up.

Not feeling like it. It was just to check, and I'll take your word for it.

Maximilian wrote:

You may have noticed a number of other mods in existance. Note the lack of legal proceedings relating thereto.

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

Maximilian wrote:

If you had an iota of understanding on the subject you would know that words are open to interpretation by the Courts, although sometime are construed strictly.

The very reason of my comment in respect of getting hung-up on words: because their meaning swing both ways, so be careful which you use where and when.

Maximilian wrote:

The thrust of copyright law, is to prevent people from using other people's IP

yes, yes, aaaaand....

Maximilian wrote:

to make money for themselves

... no, gone all wrong again - overstepped yourself.

Maximilian wrote:

As for which practice, I'll not divulge that lest you and your schoolfriends start mailing me pokemon, dipped in cat sh!t or whatever it is you crazy kids get up to at night.

:rolleyes: (but made me laugh all the same).

ambro25

stevenmu wrote:

I wonder if the people making long considered posts are more inclined towards strategy games and the posters saying things like "That's s**t" etc are FPS "twitch" gamers ?

I'll play anything - so long as it's good

stevenmu wrote:

I did mention that they have patents instead, legally I suppose they're quite different, but to me from a practical point of view they're very similar.

No, they're absolutely not. Only thing in common is that they both can be refrred to as IP.

stevenmu wrote:

AFAIK all the court can do is make an award based on (...)

Not necessarily. Court only makes an award if an award is sought. If all Tecmo wanted was for the patches to be taken off and they did win, that's all they'd get (and in all probability, unless they can prove income from the site for the hackers, that's all they will get indeed).

po0k

ambro25 wrote:

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

What if you were shooting the shít out of naked glamour models instead of evil space mutants.....as Pipo the Clown?
There are loads of custom skins of an adult/pornographic nature for Counterstrike, Half-life, Doom etc., yet no cases have been brought against the mod-creators.

If this case goes through on the grounds with which they're bringing it, it will set a worrying precendent which will ultimately hurt the games industry.

po0k

To elaborate on why I first thought this was b0ll0x:
Tecmo are trying to sue these guys for creating skins for the game models which don't feature any clothes.
The games in question use exaggerated and highly sexist representations of women as their main (some would say only) selling point. The original skins on the models leave very little to the imagination.
From an objective point of view, I think it would be hard to find a judge who woulc agree that simply removing the "clothes" of the models damages the "integrity" of the game, as Tecmo are pretty much in for a penny, in for a pound. They created games in which the player's avatars' (ie the girls') costumes gradually increase the amount of flesh exposed for viewing as part of the reward structure in the game.
How they could claim that gamers taking the extra step towards the ultimate conclusion of this pattern is in conflict with the games' premises is simply hypocritical of them.

The games' main feature is scantily-clad women jumping around with their over-sized tits flopping about the place, purely to arouse and titilate the player. On that point their argument falls on it's high-polycount, curved-surfaced arse.

ambro25

SyxPak wrote:

What if you were shooting the shít out of naked glamour models instead of evil space mutants.....as Pipo the Clown?

What is the point of an FPS? Shooting avatars (irrespective of form/appearance).

What is the point of DoA:BV? Play voleyball to win garments for dressing up purposefully attractive avatars. The point of the game is to play Virtual Barbie, not "Barbie & Ken at the Doctor's" -type scenario.

This is the kind of details upon which a case turns, as alluded to earlier.

SyxPak wrote:

If this case goes through on the grounds with which they're bringing it, it will set a worrying precendent which will ultimately hurt the games industry.

True about a worrying precedent. Not so sure about the hurting part, though. Merely set a precedent in terms of respect which developers can rightfully expect from users/players for their creations: "mod at your heart's content, just don't take the p*ss". I'm sure though that big corporate houses like EA will be very quick to grab & abuse the business angle.

Maximilian

stevenmu wrote:

I
I did mention that they have patents instead, legally I suppose they're quite different, but to me from a practical point of view they're very similar..

Probably not so much patent infringement and more Trade Mark infringement - that's what killed various attempts at making Star Wars mods. Nobody has a trade mark on the nude body, as far as I know

AFAIK all the court can do is make an award based on the monetary damage suffered by Tecmo as a result of their actions. I'd predict that ultimatly Tecmo will suffer more in damaged reputation than they ever did as a result of these patches (which probably had a positive net effect on sales if anything). I vaguely remember a case (altough it may have been in England,where the law would obviously be different ) where a company couldn't prove it had suffered any damage as a result of copywrite infringement. The case was kicked out, and they had to pay both sides costs.

Not necessarily, it can grant injunctions and other forms of relief. What is happening here simply, is that Temco don't like this mod for whatever reason and have decided to get rid of it by calling in their lawyers and threatening to sue. The modders have to back down because they simply don't have the funds to even try and fight it. Its a freedom of speech issue really, so hopefully someone will champion their cause. If someone wants to mod a game so that all the characters have 3 pairs of breats and a cock for a nose, then why the hell not.

po0k

ambro25 wrote:

What is the point of an FPS? Shooting avatars (irrespective of form/appearance).

What is the point of DoA:BV? Play voleyball to win garments for dressing up purposefully attractive avatars. The point of the game is to play Virtual Barbie, not "Barbie & Ken at the Doctor's" -type scenario.

The garments become progressively skimpier and skimpier.
It's the lack of material which forms each successive garment and the amount of the avatar's "flesh" that gets revealed which is the reward for progressing in the game.
To compare it to dressing up Barbie is not an accurate portrayal of what the concept designers and marketing slime were waffling about over the boardroom table.
It's digital tit(ilation) for adolescent males for the most part.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

I don't wrestle, that's for fairies. I box, that's for gents.

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

ambro25 wrote:

No, I suggested that modding the game in the way they have is defamatory. There is the not-so-inconsiderable matter of context.

Forgive me. let me say instead that suggesting that modding the game in the way they have is defamatory, is laughable

ambro25 wrote:

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

There is an imaginary prize for anyone who understands what the hell he's on about here.

ambro25 wrote:

The very reason of my comment in respect of getting hung-up on words: because their meaning swing both ways, so be careful which you use where and when.

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.

ambro25 wrote:

yes, yes, aaaaand....... no, gone all wrong again - overstepped yourself.

Can the "yeah, well you smell" argument be far off, I wonder? I assume you are trying to say that Copyright is not about the almighty dollar at the end of the day. This might interest you, young man.

From the article "The Purpose of Copyright" by Lydia Pallas Loren, Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College:

When the printing press was introduced into England in 1476, the need for protection of printed works was inevitable. The probable genesis of copyright law was the crown's grant of a letters patent, the printing patent, giving one entity a monopoly on the printing of certain works. Of course, a fee for that monopoly was paid to the crown, thus making the letters patent a source of revenue for the crown.

If the crown could grant these patents, the guild of booksellers, called the Stationers' Company, found that they could agree among themselves to allow a monopoly on works. The members of the Stationers' Company were almost all of the printers in England; if they agreed to respect one another's claims to particular works it was a de facto monopoly. Thus, the idea of a "copyright" started out as a member of the guild registering the title of the manuscript or "copy" with the guild. Registering a copy with the guild gave that printer the exclusive right in the copy. Thus copyright as first used was a noun - the exclusive right in the copy, whereas today many think of copyright more as a verb - the exclusive right to copy.

Incidentally, I am not breaching the author's copyright by posting the extract.

po0k

Just a side-note, are you two lads going to bill Boards.ie / Tom Murphy for your hours on this thread?

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

ambro25 wrote:

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

There is an imaginary prize for anyone who understands what the hell he's on about here.

ambro25 wrote:

Maximilian wrote:

You may have noticed a number of other mods in existance. Note the lack of legal proceedings relating thereto.

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

Are you getting a bit purposefully dense, here?

Maximilian

SyxPak wrote:

Just a side-note, are you two lads going to bill Boards.ie / Tom Murphy for your hours on this thread?

I'll be emailing a Fee Note later (hey, its a Friday)

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Are you getting a bit purposefully dense, here?

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

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