]Syntax Error[ Gets Shut Down By Nintendo C&D

[Skrypnyk]

I insured no gaming company to ever sue ocr by introducing them to Chris Crocker.

[The Coop]

When we sing arrangements of songs in choir, all of the sheet music we use specifically states that not only did the arranger ask for express written permission in making the arrangement, but he/she also paid a royalty/licensing fee to do so. So, I'm sorry, copyrighted music has been rearranged on this site without express written permission or licensing fees. This site is just as 'illegal' as ]EE[, from a purely legal standpoint. A judge wouldn't side with OCR by a long shot.

And that's just the music! What about the art in the upper-right hand corner of each web page? I'm pretty sure there isn't a copyright symbol on each of them, and I'm moderately certain that OCR doesn't have permission to use them. This site DOES sell things, too; even if it's not expressly FOR profit, money is gained in part because of the brand recognition of video game characters.

If any game company decided to drop the banhammer on this site, there wouldn't be a legal thing anyone could do about it. That, frankly, scares me.

Several things need to be pointed out...

- To the best of my knowledge, OCR does not sell game remixes without gaining original owner permissions, or game artwork from given companies. It sells various items with the OCR logo and text on it (djp or someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

- Anyone can host a screenshot or piece of artwork from a game, as long as their not selling those images to people. In fact, a good number of companies offer free packages for people download so they can make their own fansites filled with official artwork and such. OCR isn't doing anything different.

- We don't hack into games to make our music, nor do we tell others how to hack into games to make music. A trio copying a game onto their PC, hacking the ISO and messing with the copyrighted code, and then telling others how to go about hacking the ISO so they can have said trio's work, is why groups like ]EE[ are seen in a far more negative light by companies like Tecmo and Nintendo. Which leads me too...

- Yes, this site could be shut down in a heartbeat if some company got their panties in a bunch. No one doubts that for a split second, nor have they ever doubted it. However, OCR has actually had the original composers of some of the music that's been remixed express positive feelings towards OCR and the concept of free game music remixing. It's also had a few of those composers post on OCR, and submit remixes of their own music. Hell, Tommy Tallarico came here looking to see if people were interested in submitting remixes that could have ended up on an Earthworm Jim album he was supposed to be doing at the time. And do I even need to mention the recent SSF2THD stuff?

This site walks a fine line, but it's also gone out of its way to make sure it doesn't step over that line and shoot itself in the foot. It's not a secretive place, telling and/or encouraging people to burn their games and hack the code. People like ]EE[ can't say the same, and as strange as it may strike you, that is a considerable difference in the eyes of game companies.

[DarkeSword]

I mean, if you want to leave the door open for this to happen here, be my guest... but some people aren't willing to even leave it to chance, to even want the possibility to be there.

OK, so what do you suggest we do? Save us, oh wise and learned Kieser.

[JackKieser]

@ H. Guderian: What constitutes 'safe distance'? See, the line is murky. Strictly speaking, there really is no such thing. Again, the legal term is 'derivative works'. Every single song here, no matter how arranged it is, is a 'derivative work' by it's own admission (considering the site lists the games and tracks remixed). That means that it breaks copyright law and, if the holder so chooses, he/she can come collecting on that copyright.

@Darkesword: Hey, no need to get all sarcastic. The whole reason I pointed this out here is because many people don't even KNOW half of international copyright law. I'm sure the majority of the people using this site don't realize the implications. This is all about education. Again, if you don't feel threatened, then don't do anything. Those of us who do, however, believe that copyright law has flaws that need fixing will attempt to bring those flaws to light. That's how social/legal change is made. I hope you aren't demeaning activism with that sarcasm...

@The Coop: It's not strange to me. Not at all. I just don't like leaving things to chance. Personally, the very existance of the possibility of something happening to a site like OCR because of a technicality in law is enough to warrant action. It may not be like that for you. That's fine. Like I said, though, the fact that this site hasn't worn out its welcome yet doesn't mean that it never will in the future; if these companies find a way to make significant money off of licensing artists to arrange their music for sale, I assure you the possibility will become much more substantial. That's capitalism for you. I know that once it gets to that point, it will be too late to change things. I'm just trying to give people a head start by getting this story out there and explaining the implications.

[JJT]

I hope you aren't demeaning activism with that sarcasm...

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

[Bleck]

ACTIVISM LOL big

[Doulifée]

what are you doing here? weeping because your site is down and not ocr?

[JackKieser]

what are you doing here? weeping because your site is down and not ocr?

...No...... not quite. Again, I'm just trying to get a little information out there on a perceived problem in a law. I'm... sorry for trying to educate people? Again, I'm not sure why the sarcasm is needed. Oh, by the way, I have quite the OCR collection on my hard drive; I've been here MUCH longer than I have been at ]EE[; were I to choose between, I'd choose OCR in a heartbeat. So, I don't see how this is someone weeping because '[my] site is down'.

[Bleck]

I'm... sorry for trying to educate people?

this thread is bad and you should feel bad

[DarkeSword]

@Darkesword: Hey, no need to get all sarcastic. The whole reason I pointed this out here is because many people don't even KNOW half of international copyright law. I'm sure the majority of the people using this site don't realize the implications. This is all about education. Again, if you don't feel threatened, then don't do anything. Those of us who do, however, believe that copyright law has flaws that need fixing will attempt to bring those flaws to light. That's how social/legal change is made. I hope you aren't demeaning activism with that sarcasm...

Please. It's not activism. Most of the people who are up in arms about this couldn't give two shits about copyright law; they just want to play Smash Bros. with custom textures. There are no noble intentions here.

[anosou]

Doesn't matter. Have all the disclaimers you want, the songs on this site are still 'derivative works of copyrighted material', and legally any company holding copyrights from any arrangement on this site could come collecting any day now. Fair use states that non-profit or non-commercial helps the case for fair use, but simply being non-profit or non-commercial isn't enough.

@Bleck: You're missing my point. The fact that companies haven't called in on their copyrights doesn't mean that they don't have the right to. This site has just been lucky; hope that it doesn't overstay its usefulness, though.

So you basically think copyright is something the world should abandon because it keeps hack-related projects from getting released when they're obviously 1. breaking the law and (and this is important because you haven't gotten this during the last pages) 2. does something that HURTS THE COMPANY WITH THE COPYRIGHT?

I think the point of all this is the following, something you miss time and time again:

• ]EE[ did something that hurt Nintendo in several ways, Nintendo chose the C&D to protect their copyright. Entirely legal and for a good reason.

• OCR does NOT use copyrighted material in the same way, it's about music which is in a legal gray area (covers, arrangement and not-for-profit is something you should look up) and we do not hurt the game company in any way. Rather the oppossite really, we bring attention to their soundtrack releases, games and employees.

The real problem comes from the .ISO debate and homebrew.

No debate really.. It's obvious that ]EE[ is in the wrong. Before I do though, do not answer with something like "That's not the point, any company can shut down sites/projects/poo-sculptures with copyrighted material" because no one is saying they can't. You're trying to throw shit on Nintendo because of what they've done and we're trying to tell you that's dumb because Nintendo is right. Now, explanation time.. To use the "patch" you need to apply it to an .iso. To play this iso you need a modified Wii. To modify a Wii is illegal. Why?

INTERNET, I CALL UPON THEE!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip#Legality - Under the DMCA (US Law) it's illegal to circumvent any kind of "technological measure" to protect copyright. The technological measure is what makes it impossible to play .isos. So, in essence, the patch does (no matter what they OR you say) encourage something that serously hurts Nintendo. So they went the C&D route, for great justice.

Those of us who do, however, believe that copyright law has flaws that need fixing will attempt to bring those flaws to light. That's how social/legal change is made. I hope you aren't demeaning activism with that sarcasm...

The copyright law might have flaws but this is not, in any way, a good example of that. You're not educating us by the way.. IF you wanted to talk about why copyright is flawed you should've talked about the new generation of file-sharers when it comes to music because this is where the gray area is and where most of the questionable uses of copyright can be found. You could start with the 19th century ideas about the composer as an enlightened being as a result of Beethovens genious and new way of employement, when music stopped being a craft like plumbing and was elevated to art like.. apparently painting. You could also mention the industrialization and french revolutions changes in how "copyright" was handled because music was "sold" in sheet music form. You could then explain that this system is getting obsolete in the age of digital audio and recording in a climate were composers aren't measured by skill like they were during the 19th century and were the "use" of music has broadened considerably... but then again, you're not educating us about copyright and it's issues.

loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool

You always no just the right things to say ;*

[Dyne]

Activism? It's not activism when you're attempting to basically make a case FOR piracy, which is clearly what is happening with this ]EE[ thing. Honestly, that's what you're basically attempting to do by drumming up support for them, or at least attempting to do.

The problem isn't that they're being handed a C&D order, and a year's worth of work is now gone. That's not it at all, it's the fact that Nintendo didn't like the fact that they hacked and reverse engineered their ROM, and basically wanted a stop put on it. That's the issue. And frankly, that's tough shit.

And to sit there, and compare OCR to ]EE[ just tells me that you are basically just whining about how's not "fair" that one site continues, while another one fails. The facts are the facts in this case, and the facts remain that ]EE[ was hacking, plain and simple. There is no middle ground, and Nintendo has every right, as you have said, to do what they did, whether they like it or not.

[JackKieser]

Hahaha.... WOW, have you guys misinterpreted. I really feel bad now, not for anything I said, but that you all have misread the intentions of the thread SO MUCH.

One bit at a time. Because AS called upon the internet: Activism is "an intentional action to bring about social or political change." Change of law IS political change, so this is activism. Doesn't have to be PETA to be activism; some activism (like just starting a debate or educating) is small in nature.

Two, I'm NOT comparing OCR and ]EE[. They are both breaking copyright law, though in different ways. Those different ways, however, stem partially from the same starting point, that being 'derivative work'. So, they aren't a 1:1 match, but one perceived problem in copyright law brings about two seperate, yet partially related, problems. ]EE['s is worse. Not only have I, but nearly person talking about this hsa stated that ]EE['s 'law-breaking' is blatant copyright infringment.

THAT BEING SAID, I obviously disagree with the current state of copyright law. Is it necessary? YES! Of COURSE it is. But not in the state it is in now. It gives too many rights to IP holders and not enough rights to the public. I should be able to do whatever I want to my Brawl disc (and any data on it) as long as I don't distribute, and you should be able to make arrangements until the cows come home without fear of legal action as long as you don't sell anything. We're, believe it or not, on the same side here.

So, really, the fact that you're all getting so livid about this thread is seriously confusing to me. Really, it is. I hope you aren't the same people saying "Oh, it's dumb to impeach Bush," or (the more Nixonian in nature) "The law can't be wrong because it's the law." It's just a little discourse here; no reason to get yourselves all worked up.

[Bleck]

Hahaha.... WOW, have you guys misinterpreted.

warning

warning

incoming backpedal

[JackKieser]

Go ahead, man. Sarcasm is so useful here.

[Doulifée]

I should be able to do whatever I want to my Brawl disc (and any data on it) as long as I don't distribute, and you should be able to make arrangements until the cows come home without fear of legal action as long as you don't sell anything.

you don't own the program, you bought a game, not quite the same. you don't distribute? what are you doing on the web? sharing stuff with other people to mod the game, quit the world wide web and go modding in your garage like in the 80's. Ok you don't sell it, right, but piracy don't sell anything, they distribute.

[anosou]

Hahaha.... WOW, have you guys misinterpreted. I really feel bad now, not for anything I said, but that you all have misread the intentions of the thread SO MUCH.

I'm NOT comparing OCR and ]EE[.

Your second post in this thread:

The point is that fan artists =/= mainstream pirates. Not even close. The worst ]EE[ did was break copyrights by making art of copyrighted characters, but then, this site is doing the same thing. I'm sure you all would be VERY upset if all the sudden gaming companies collected on their copyrights here instead of spending that time and money chasing legitimate pirates. Sure, legally they CAN, but is it necessary?

That's what is getting people upset. This shouldn't be an issue... but it is.

Oh my, you just compared ]EE[ to OCR in the THIRD POST EVER IN THIS THREAD. Damn, we misinterpreted you, sorry.

Also, you ignored pretty much everything I said in regards to you comparing the two AND defending ]EE[ from the IP holders, i.e. Nintendo. I can sum up my point so you won't have to read:

Using the patch with Brawl requires you to modify your Wii which is 1. Illegal and 2. encouraging piracy although not directly. This is both against the law (many times around) and does hurt Nintendo enough to see it as an issue.

In regards to your comparison with OCR: OCR does none of the above, charges no money in any part of the chain and PROMOTES the IP holder, artist and anything around it.

You're out of line and you were so from the beginning, call it quit?

[Salluz]

Sounds like a very poor argument for getting on Nintendo's case - if they want to retain their copyright, they have to defend it. This is exactly why (unfortunately) Chrono Resurrection got shut down.

This is a weak cause.

Right. Although Nintendo did pick a battle, regardless, here's my motto: it if aintchos, don't touch it.

[Blue123]

It's like soulja boy before we derailed the thread

[JackKieser]

you don't own the program, you bought a game, not quite the same. you don't distribute? what are you doing on the web? sharing stuff with other people to mod the game, quit the world wide web and go modding in your garage like in the 80's. Ok you don't sell it, right, but piracy don't sell anything, they distribute.

Of course, the difference would be that I'm modding something that not only I already possess, but something I'm not giving away modified afterward, whereas in the case of piracy I am acquiring distributed data that I don't yet own. Quite different. And, information is different than action. Am I, by saying 'this is how you modify something', making someone else modify it? No, I am not. Of course, the way I see it, modifying something you already possess (without the intention of giving the modified product to another person) should be ok anyway, so giving away the how-to wouldn't be a problem either. The point is that I don't think there should be a difference between the physical copy of Brawl and the bytes on the disc. Oh, by the way, have you ever changed the volume settings on a song you got on iTunes? Technically, that's illegal then, because you don't own the bytes that make the song, and so you don't have the right to change the waveform to a volume that doesn't (or does) hurt your ears.

The technicalities of our current system can get quite ridiculous.

@AS: Ah ah ah! I said there that they both broke copyright law, but did I compare the manner in which they did? No, not in that post. Sorry. The whole point is that I don't agree with current law that states that changing the bytes on your Brawl disc is 'piracy'. Downloading a game you don't possess should never be a protected action, but either changing a game you already own or downloading a game you ALREADY OWN shouldn't be restricted actions. That's why I disagree. It's not that I ignored your point on piracy... it's that I just flat-out disagree with the law.

[JackKieser]

Whoops, DP. Sorry guys. I apologize.

[Dyne]

Hahaha.... WOW, have you guys misinterpreted. I really feel bad now, not for anything I said, but that you all have misread the intentions of the thread SO MUCH.

One bit at a time. Because AS called upon the internet: Activism is "an intentional action to bring about social or political change." Change of law IS political change, so this is activism. Doesn't have to be PETA to be activism; some activism (like just starting a debate or educating) is small in nature.

What exactly are we changing here, or attempting to change? Obviously, you think there needs to be some change, so what is it exactly?

Two, I'm NOT comparing OCR and ]EE[. They are both breaking copyright law, though in different ways. Those different ways, however, stem partially from the same starting point, that being 'derivative work'. So, they aren't a 1:1 match, but one perceived problem in copyright law brings about two seperate, yet partially related, problems. ]EE['s is worse. Not only have I, but nearly person talking about this hsa stated that ]EE['s 'law-breaking' is blatant copyright infringment.

Apparently, you failed to read what AnSo posted, so for you, I shall QFE:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip#Legality - Under the DMCA (US Law) it's illegal to circumvent any kind of "technological measure" to protect copyright. The technological measure is what makes it impossible to play .isos. So, in essence, the patch does (no matter what they OR you say) encourage something that serously hurts Nintendo. So they went the C&D route, for great justice.

THAT BEING SAID, I obviously disagree with the current state of copyright law. Is it necessary? YES! Of COURSE it is. But not in the state it is in now. It gives too many rights to IP holders and not enough rights to the public. I should be able to do whatever I want to my Brawl disc (and any data on it) as long as I don't distribute, and you should be able to make arrangements until the cows come home without fear of legal action as long as you don't sell anything. We're, believe it or not, on the same side here.

Really? You say so, yet you say we "misinterpret" your meaning. How are we doing that? Obviously, you're missing something yourself because all I see is a repeating statement in favor of people who've obviously committed an infringing act.

So, really, the fact that you're all getting so livid about this thread is seriously confusing to me. Really, it is. I hope you aren't the same people saying "Oh, it's dumb to impeach Bush," or (the more Nixonian in nature) "The law can't be wrong because it's the law." It's just a little discourse here; no reason to get yourselves all worked up.

No, we're not getting "livid". In fact, we're not getting worked up. Everyone has an opinion on something, if that's all you're stating here that's fine, but it just seems like you keep arguing a point that is invalidated by the very act that was committed. If you're trying to say it's "unfair" after the countless hours invested in the body of work that they undertook, well, that's their own fault for breaking the law. They should be lucky that it's only a C&D order. Nintendo may follow with a lawsuit, which could be VERY damaging to them.

Also, does Bush deserve to be impeached? That's another matter of opinion. Nixonian? What the f*** is that word supposed to mean? If you want to compare it to the Watergate scandal, I can't help you there, I was not alive yet to see that.

As far as saying that OCR "violates copyright law", you are WAY off base, and I once again invite you to read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modchip#Legality - Under the DMCA (US Law) it's illegal to circumvent any kind of "technological measure" to protect copyright. The technological measure is what makes it impossible to play .isos. So, in essence, the patch does (no matter what they OR you say) encourage something that serously hurts Nintendo. So they went the C&D route, for great justice.

I'd also like to point out, that I do agree that OCR covers a "gray" area of the law, with a very very fine line. A line that no one on this site has ever intended to, nor will attempt to cross, because let's face it, the judges aren't going to allow that, and neither is DJPretzel.

Now, any more problems?

[anosou]

@AS: Ah ah ah! I said there that they both broke copyright law, but did I compare the manner in which they did? No, not in that post. Sorry.

The worst ]EE[ did was break copyrights by making art of copyrighted characters, but then, this site is doing the same thing. I'm sure you all would be VERY upset if all the sudden gaming companies collected on their copyrights here instead of spending that time and money chasing legitimate pirates. Sure, legally they CAN, but is it necessary?

soo...

"the worst thing ]EE[ did was break copyrights" "this site is doing the same thing". How is that not to compare? Then you gave us the example that a C&D could happen to OCR too and that both examples rendered the C&D not "necessary". While you may not have mentioned the manner in detail it's pretty clear from that post what you were hinting at. Stop being smug :/

in other news you've STILL ignored my point about how ]EE[ REQUIRES a modification of the console in order to use the patch and that THIS might in fact be why Nintendo shut them down. It's a bit more to it than that Nintendo (and I quote) "chose to shut down a fanart project".

[JackKieser]

What exactly are we changing here, or attempting to change? Obviously, you think there needs to be some change, so what is it exactly?

The part of copyright law that says that I can't change the bytes on a Brawl disc that I own. Also, I think that backups should be legal, as long as they aren't distributed.

Apparently, you failed to read what AnSo posted, so for you, I shall QFE:

No, I read it. It just doesn't apply to anything that OCR does, and even if it does, I don't agree with the policy. With the exception of security, encryption shouldn't be a problem. Although, I'm still coming to a concrete decision on how I feel about content encryption, so that is likely to change in the future.

Really? You say so, yet you say we "misinterpret" your meaning. How are we doing that? Obviously, you're missing something yourself because all I see is a repeating statement in favor of people who've obviously committed an infringing act.

Yes, because I disagree with the part of the laws that make it an infringing act. The use of characters they don't own I accept. The modding of a game they bought and the making of backups, I do not.

No, we're not getting "livid". In fact, we're not getting worked up. Everyone has an opinion on something, if that's all you're stating here that's fine, but it just seems like you keep arguing a point that is invalidated by the very act that was committed. If you're trying to say it's "unfair" after the countless hours invested in the body of work that they undertook, well, that's their own fault for breaking the law. They should be lucky that it's only a C&D order. Nintendo may follow with a lawsuit, which could be VERY damaging to them.

There was enough sarcasm pointed at me for me to consider that 'livid'. It really wasn't warranted. It's not like I insulted your mothers or something.

Also, does Bush deserve to be impeached? That's another matter of opinion. Nixonian? What the f*** is that word supposed to mean? If you want to compare it to the Watergate scandal, I can't help you there, I was not alive yet to see that.

Nixon said in the Frost interviews something along the lines that if the President does something, it automatically isn't illegal, insinuating that the President is above the law. Which translates (in this context) to "It's the law, so it can't be wrong."

As far as saying that OCR "violates copyright law", you are WAY off base, and I once again invite you to read this:

*snip*

I'd also like to point out, that I do agree that OCR covers a "gray" area of the law, with a very very fine line. A line that no one on this site has ever intended to, nor will attempt to cross, because let's face it, the judges aren't going to allow that, and neither is DJPretzel.

Now, any more problems?

The problem is that it isn't a line that hasn't been crossed. According to law, the very existence of a remix that is being distributed without express consent is copyright infringement. The line has already been crossed. I, obviously, disagree with this and would like 'derivative works' laws to be re-worked, though I'm still wrestling with how. I'm not naive enough to think I have all the answers right at this second.

Now, food time.

@AS: I didn't compare the specifics. At a base level, we could super-simplify all copyright infringement down to "they broke copyright law", and just leave it at that. Obviously, at a deeper level, that can't be done, and later in the thread, I explained that. And, I already said I don't agree with the part of the law that says you can't modify things you own. That includes modchips, the HBC, hacks, anything. I own it; as long as I don't give it to someone else, I should be free to do as I please with it.

[Dyne]

Of course, the difference would be that I'm modding something that not only I already possess, but something I'm not giving away modified afterward, whereas in the case of piracy I am acquiring distributed data that I don't yet own. Quite different. And, information is different than action. Am I, by saying 'this is how you modify something', making someone else modify it? No, I am not. Of course, the way I see it, modifying something you already possess (without the intention of giving the modified product to another person) should be ok anyway, so giving away the how-to wouldn't be a problem either. The point is that I don't think there should be a difference between the physical copy of Brawl and the bytes on the disc. Oh, by the way, have you ever changed the volume settings on a song you got on iTunes? Technically, that's illegal then, because you don't own the bytes that make the song, and so you don't have the right to change the waveform to a volume that doesn't (or does) hurt your ears.

Now wait just a second here. First of all, just because you own the machine, does not mean you own the software or the patents on the hardware or even any of the trademarks on the machine or the parts therein, therefore, you are not technically owner of any legal right to change the machine in any fashion. Doing so not only voids your warranty, but is considered piracy. Actively teaching others how to circumvent the system is also wrong, because that can promote piracy as well.

The technicalities of our current system can get quite ridiculous.

Even so, that doesn't give people the right to break the law.

@AS: Ah ah ah! I said there that they both broke copyright law, but did I compare the manner in which they did? No, not in that post. Sorry. The whole point is that I don't agree with current law that states that changing the bytes on your Brawl disc is 'piracy'. Downloading a game you don't possess should never be a protected action, but either changing a game you already own or downloading a game you ALREADY OWN shouldn't be restricted actions. That's why I disagree. It's not that I ignored your point on piracy... it's that I just flat-out disagree with the law.