MotF in PC Gamer UK?!

[razorace]

I just got some reports that PC Gamer UK put MotF on their cover cd! Someone please send me a scan of the related pages so I can confirm.

 

They NEVER contacted us! Ack!

[JaledDur]

Originally posted by razorace

I just got some reports that PC Gamer UK put MotF on their cover cd! Someone please send me a scan of the related pages so I can confirm.

 

They NEVER contacted us! Ack!

 

Cool if they did, gj.

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by razorace

They NEVER contacted us! Ack!

 

OMFG!! Let's sue!! :bounce1:

 

Can I sue 'em, canIcanIcanI?? I haven't sued anyone in weeks!

[Prime]

Wouldn't this be good exposure?

 

I suspect it probably isn't though.

[razorace]

Well, sure. It's just the principle of the thing. It says directly in the readme that it is not for profit based distrobution.

[happydan]

yeah, they did on the DVD. dont have the scanner set up, and im too lazy. sorry.

[Emon]

They aren't charging you for what's on those CDs or DVDs, they charge your for the CD or DVD itself, and the labor that goes into it. It's perfectly legal and isn't bending any rules at all.

[Luc Solar]

No-one is allowed to copy MOTF without permission if razorace owns the copyright to it. Profit or no profit makes no difference.

 

If they have the right to distribute it, then it must be free of charge period

 

You can't sell a bag filled with not-for-profit-based-distribution-stuff saying "oh yeah, it's all free, I'm just charging 50 € for the time I spent looking for a bag that I could put all this stuff in.."

 

Unless I'm missing something?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Their's nothing illegal about that they did!

 

If it was only exclusively avaliable from that magazine or something, then I guess you could argue their 'profiting' from it as you say, cos people would HAVE to buy the magazine to get it.

 

But since MotF is avaliable for free download anyway, all they've done is made the mod more avaiable for those with crappy / no internet connections. And they're helping out the modding community by getting good mods noticed. i.e. their just providing a service...

 

I think it's a bit wierd they didn't contact the MotF team about it - but not for any legal reasons...

But just to give them a heads up. Make sure there wasn't a much better version about to be released that they might want on the CD instead etc.

[razorace]

Actually, what they did was illegal (technically). Both the EULA of JK2's source code AND the copyright notice for the mod state that you are not allowed to profit from the distrubution of the mod (with purmission from the copyright holders). I was very specific about it. This "Oh, they payed for the cost of the CD" is crap. They make money on the deal and work for that reason, period.

[Emon]

Do you have any idea how many PC gaming magazines would have been shutdown if that was truely illegal?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Razor,

 

I'm absolutely positive they didn't break any laws putting MotF on the CD without your permission.

 

Tell ya what - try sending an e-mail to PC Gamer contending that what they did was illegal and expect a reply which just reads...

 

...wtf?!

 

 

Luc,

 

Razor created the MotF mod - yes, but he does not 'own' it in the strictist sense. He could potentially copyright specific ideas (unless that breaks other copyrights of course) - but the mod itself comes under the banner of LucasArts.

This is evident from the fact that LucasArts can potentially shut down a JKII mod whenever they like. If we, the mod makers, actually owned the mods, how could they potentially snap their fingers and shut them down against our will...?

 

...because it belongs to them. Were modding THEIR game and so THEY own it.

 

In short - the only ones who could claim any wrong doing are LucasArts themselves.

So until I see some head huncho from LucasVille jumping up and down and screaming at this great injustice, I'm assuming their perfectly OK with it.

 

I imagine these magazines have some kind of general clause type deal with game makers and distributors which lets them put game updates / mods etc. on their CD's freely as part of their basic set-up. i.e. they probably already have permission from the copyright owners - LucasArts.

Or possibly they just know LucasArts won't be bothered one bit, because they know it's actually in their interest.

 

Either way, they know what their doing! You don't think a professional games magazine running for years now knows the law on this?!!

 

Come on people...!

They either know their not breaking the law, or even if there is ANY kind of grey area which could potentially be argued - they know it's not even worth mentioning.

 

The fact is the stuff that 'really' makes profit for games magazines are their 'exclusive' content. Their reviews, previews, editorials etc. Not stuff you can download for free anyway...

 

I mean I'm not a law expert or nothing, but I figured this stuff was just common sense really...

 

...or maybe it's just the in-built American need to sue anything that moves!!

[happydan]

technically, it could be considered that the profit is going to lucasarts, because the mods create exposure for the game, and increase its life... infact, as long as a readme is incuded in the zip, everyone is a winner. razor gets mod exposure, and can say it was on a magazine CD, lucasarts get the above, and the mag get something on the CD...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

[edit]

Damn. I've just seen that you've cancalled MotF Razor.

Sorry man, I did post something here before, but I don't want to seem like a jerk.

What I've edited out was just joking around a bit about the PC gamer thing. It was nothing nasty or anything, but since you've cancelled the mod, it may sound like I was taking the piss or something.

 

(I'm learning to be VERY careful how I come across on forums now! It's so easy for anything you say to be read in a more harsh light than you meant it...)

 

That's tough news dude.

 

Here's hoping JA enables you to get what you want in the mod...

[/edit]

[razorace]

hmmm, there's no agreement between the mags and the developers except for exclusive content. You assume too much for a company that didn't even bother to spellcheck their entry for the mod.

 

The usual deal is that all the mods, demos, etc are open demain programs so that everyone can distrubite them as long as they don't profit from them. As long as it's not blatent profiting, most companies/people don't care (like in the case of demos on mag cds). However, the right is still there. (and is using to crack down on people that illegally pack together maps/models/etc from the net onto a cd and try to sell them in stores)

 

In this case, I specifically noted that in the readme. As they didn't even bother to ask (or even read the readme), I take a bit of personal offence at that. Hell, I don't even get that mag. How am I suppose to note it on the website or even get a copy for myself if they don't even ask/tell me about it?!

 

As they never replied to me and I'm basically shutting down the project for the time being, it's probably a moot point anyway. I'll probably personally buy it for sentimental value (first published work!). There's no point doing legal action over something that's non-profit in the first place.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yeap - exactly.

 

This is more an issue of just basic good manners than legality...

 

..and in that sense I think they slipped up - indeed.

They should have gotten in touch with you...

[Luc Solar]

It would be futile to argue legal things considering we all live in different legal systems.

 

But one thing is certain and global: copyright is automatic. If you "make" something, you have the copyright. And the most basic way of copyright infringement is COPYING it and SELLING it without permission.

 

To those who say "if it wasn't legal, they wouldn't do it" : the whole software industry is a mess. Did you know that Lucasarts did not sell you your copy of JO? They only let you USE it for as long as you obey by the rules set out in the EULA. The fancy Collectors Edition stuff ain't yours. You own nothing.

 

And from the EULA you can read stuff like:

 

You can install JO on 1 computer and only you can use it on that 1 computer.

Anyone uppgraded their comp? Anyone let your buddy or family member try JO? Did you take a back-up copy? Have you in any way disparaged Lucasarts or it's affiliates? Oopsie. You, sir, just lost your right to use JO and must destroy everything starting from the manual and the box the game came in. And no, you won't get your money back...no, you can't sell JO to anyone, the EULA forbids that.

 

EULA's are the most horrible thing ever seen in contract law. It would be more close to the truth to go: "Hmmm...a software company is doing it, so it must be ILLEGAL."

 

Phew...where did that rant come from??! . Sorry.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Oh definelty! All this kind of stuff is potentially a mine field - I totally agree.

Any one statement in these kind of contracts can potentially be twisted round to almost ANY convievable outcome!

 

So my rule of thumb for any given example of 'illegal' activity is - if it was taken to court, would you have a case.

 

In the MotF vs. Pc Gamer case ... ermmm ... do I really have to go on?!

Therefore PC Gamer did not do anything illegal. Maybe you can try and define it as such with some sub-section viewed under a certain light.

But whatever - in REAL terms, they didn't do anything wrong...

 

As far as the copyright stuff, it's only as clear cut as you make out for totally ORIGINAL works. If I draw a painting from scratch - and obviously assuming i'm not blatently copying some else's work - then it's my painting - I have copyright. No issues there. (Trying to prove it later on could be a different story!)

 

But modding is a different situation altogether. Imagine taking someone else's painting, adding a few brush strokes here and there and then claiming the painting is yours...!

[shock ~ unnamed]

heh and you would think that people would *want coverage for a mod that very few people even know about about for a game that is 75% dead...

 

That's not a shot at your mod but it's not like a see a flood (or any really) of coverage for *any jk2 mod outside of these forums.

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk

So my rule of thumb for any given example of 'illegal' activity is - if it was taken to court, would you have a case.

...

But whatever - in REAL terms, they didn't do anything wrong...

...

But modding is a different situation altogether. Imagine taking someone else's painting, adding a few brush strokes here and there and then claiming the painting is yours...!

 

I refuse to talk about "real life". In my lawyer's POW it's legal or illegal period

 

I could go on about the modding thing 'cause it's quite interesting copyright-wise, but... it would be as useless as it is for me to say that you people on the other side of the world shouldn't go out today 'cause it's raining cats and dogs here.

 

Bottom line: PC Gamer should've asked razorace's permission. That's just common courtesy.

[razorace]

Uh, there's a lot of grey areas in law. If your lawyer beleives something or not, it doesn't make it true.

 

Anyway, EULAs are written by publisher lawyers that obviously know nothing about the use of computer games or they wouldn't make the thing so impossibly restricted.

[Luc Solar]

Originally posted by razorace

Uh, there's a lot of grey areas in law. If your lawyer beleives something or not, it doesn't make it true.

 

I was speaking theoretically. You could rob someone and get away with it if that person doesn't sue for some reason. Still it ain't right. Something is or is not against the law. It can't be both. There is no grey area, there are only people who interpret the law wrong. (Except in the US of A where the whole law becomes a big grey lump as soon as you pull out a JURY )

 

And I beg to differ about only lawyers writing EULA's, no matter how incompetent they might be.

Some of the stuff I've seen can't possibly be written by anyone who has even heard about law school...

 

(Boy...has this thread gone OT or what!)

[Prime]

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk

He could potentially copyright specific ideas

Actually, you can't copyright an idea. You can only copyright an implementation of that idea. Just for the record

 

Originally posted by Luc Solar

It would be futile to argue legal things considering we all live in different legal systems.

 

But one thing is certain and global: copyright is automatic. If you "make" something, you have the copyright. And the most basic way of copyright infringement is COPYING it and SELLING it without permission.

 

To those who say "if it wasn't legal, they wouldn't do it" : the whole software industry is a mess. Did you know that Lucasarts did not sell you your copy of JO? They only let you USE it for as long as you obey by the rules set out in the EULA. The fancy Collectors Edition stuff ain't yours. You own nothing.

 

And from the EULA you can read stuff like:

 

You can install JO on 1 computer and only you can use it on that 1 computer.

Anyone uppgraded their comp? Anyone let your buddy or family member try JO? Did you take a back-up copy? Have you in any way disparaged Lucasarts or it's affiliates? Oopsie. You, sir, just lost your right to use JO and must destroy everything starting from the manual and the box the game came in. And no, you won't get your money back...no, you can't sell JO to anyone, the EULA forbids that.

 

EULA's are the most horrible thing ever seen in contract law. It would be more close to the truth to go: "Hmmm...a software company is doing it, so it must be ILLEGAL."

 

Phew...where did that rant come from??! . Sorry.

I feel I must way in here defend my kin (the software industry). Luc and I have had this conversation before, and he had many excellent questions. Unfortunately, since I am a designer and so not too well versed on the legal side of the industry, I don't feel I answered all his questions too well. But I thought that I would share what I do know (or at least think I know ).

 

First off, a EULA is not some underhanded lawyers trick to make all of us software guys big piles of money. There is no big conspiracy by faceless organizations to stick it to the common man (Enron not withstanding). It serves a purpose and can benefit the user as much as the software company.

 

Let me just say right off the top, most companies do take pride in their products, and strive to deliver quality. Apart from personal satisfaction, why would they do this? Because it is good business. It is much easier to sell something that isn't a pile of crap, and you are much more likely to get more and repeat customers. In the end, that will make you more money than ripping people off.

 

Now, back to EULAs. In the beginning, software usage contracts were negotiated on a per customer basis. Once mass distribution became an issue, this method was no longer feasible, since every Joe Blow out there couldn't negotiate his own contract. EULAs allows each user to either accept or reject the usage contract. To my knowledge, if you really wanted to, you could go to a company and negotiate a different one. So that's how they came into being.

 

Unfortunately, like I say I don't have all the legal answers, but why use EULAs at all? EULAs protect the intellectual property of the developer and afford the end-user various rights. The digital revolution has thrown a real wrench into the works when it comes to copyright law.

 

Software can be copied very easily, and companies want to protect their investment by not selling it to you outright. This would allow you to freely distribute multiple copies (possible millions) yourself, and thus undermining the company. So they don't want you to actually own the software, but they want to you be able to use it.

 

Why is this different from buying a book? Traditional copyrighted works have relatively specific, limited uses. Software programs, however, are more like a tool than a book or video. For example, software can be used to sort data, draw, perform calculations, create documents, and develop other software. Using the EULA takes into account this complexity. Copyright law is the only protection for most regular works of authorship. Software is protected by copyright, patent, trade secret, and trademark law. Use of a single software program may require a copyright license, a patent license, a trade secret license for source code, and a trademark license. It is likely much of the software you use would not exist if all these protections had to be sold to the users. There would be no Star wars games, because Lucas would not want to sell his characters, sounds, images, and concepts to the game companies, and ultimately the players. Much of what goes into video games (models, sounds, or whatever) is supplied by third parties. These parties do not want to sell control of these works. So for development houses to use them, and in the end the players, EULAs are used to allow the use of these works, but not ownership.

 

Software's versatility and legal complexity distinguishes it from regular copyrighted materials. Software, therefore, requires the flexibility of the EULA to allow for the full range of customer uses. It allows users access to these things without having them pay for all these things outright. How much do you think JO would cost if Raven was actually trying to cover the cost of buying Star Wars?

 

Also EULA usually give you more freedom than you normally would have. Lucasarts and Raven could easily say outright that their game cannot be modified and distibuted in any way. Thus no mods. But the EULA does give you that right. Many EULAs also allow you to make backup copies, which by normal copyright, etc. laws you would be prevented from doing.

 

Wow. That's a lot. I guess my only real point is that EULAs are not a big company scam, and they do also give freedoms to the end-user, not just protect the company's assets.

[razorace]

mmm, but the rights given to the user/company are obvious. Just like for a book. When it is vague, a simple paragraph would be sufficent; Not the monster documents that EULAs are. In addition, EULAs have yet to really stick in court AND noone reads them anything. If the company has a liscensing issue (in my opinion) a simple liscense.txt would be fine.

[Luc Solar]

Ha ha.. here we go again

 

You can ask whether or not EULA's are needed.

 

A totally different question is: Are they binding?

 

Software companies need EULA's. But do they need 'em in COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) software, like games?

 

They got copyright. Copyright protects them from people copying their work.

 

What copyright does not protect (and this is a bummer for companies) is the structure, ideas etc. etc. of the program. If somehow you get the info about the underlying ideas of a program, you can freely (copyright-wise) use that info to create an exactly similar, identical looking piece of software and start selling it.... as long as the code you use *looks* different. This is the big problem with copyright. It doesn't safeguard what's most important.

 

We also have "fair use". You can't use an EULA to strip away the rights end users have according to the "fair use" doctrine. IMHO it is not necessary to use EULA's since reverse engineering is not allowed (dunno about USA) and fair use offers the end user a broader set of rights than 99% of EULA's. (Note that I'm only talking about off-the-shelf software bought by consumers)

 

We pay for a perpetual *right to use* the product up front for 70+ years. A normal game is used for..what, 3 months tops? We pay for all this time and even though we end the continuous legal relationship ("lease") we get no refunds from the 69+ years that we payed for but didn't use. What exactly is the difference to a "sale"? The difference is that this way the copyright holder can make an EULA where he writes down everything he possibly can imagine benefiting him. You're not allowed to disparage Microsoft or it's affiliates. No benchmarks. No cheering the wrong NHL team. No doing this or that or else!

 

"Or else what?"

>> Or else...OR ELSE YOU'LL LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE AND MUST DESTROY IT ALL AND YOU WON'T BE GETTING YOUR MONEY BACK EVEN THOUGH YOU PAID FOR 70+ YEARS, that's what.

 

"but you can't tell me which NHL team I'm supposed to like, can you??"

>> Errm... legally no, but if you don't do as I say YOU'LL LOSE THE RIGHT TO USE THE SOFTWARE AND MUST DESTROY IT IMMEDIATELY. So you gonna do as I say or should we go to court?

 

Anyways, one more thing before I go:

 

Is a shrink wrap EULA binding? No. Not as such. You can not accept an agreement without knowing what it is. That's the most basic requirement. Shrink wrap is BS. You need to at least have an *opportunity* to check what you are bying, the terms of the contract, first. (btw - I know some states in the US have accepted shrink wraps)

 

I urge you all to search Lucasart's (Or any site of any game ever) site and find me even a single tiny print somewhere where it says: Oh yeah, just because it sais "buy JO" it doesn't mean that we would actually *sell* it.. we're just LICENSING stuff.

 

How about putting the EULA's terms up on the net? Would that be an impossible feat? Huh, would it, huh!? ( ) This is software. If you're bying a right to use, you sure as hell must *first* have a chance to see what the right to use is. The scope of the right to use = the product. It's absurd that the EULA can not be seen anywhere, not even on the net. Talk about informing the consumer...

 

"I need to use this program on my comp and laptop 'cause I travel a lot, but I don't know if that's allowed. So I just need to try my luck in picking the one program that has an EULA inside it that sais I can use it on my laptop. Sure hope I'll get it right... otherwise I'll have to buy TWO licenses!"