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

[anosou]

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.

It does however apply to what ]EE[ did which is what you're defending and what this thread is about. Remember?

@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.

I agree with you, I think you should be able to do what you want to something you own as long as you don't distribute.

Too bad ]EE[ was distributing this then.

[DarkeSword]

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.

Nobody's getting livid. The problem is that you don't really have a point. You're trying to justify EE's actions with some pretty weak arguments. You did compare what EE did to what OCR does, trying to draw parallels and then doomsaying the future of OCR, saying that you're very worried; and yet we've shown you that they are very different things and that OCR isn't in any real danger because of those differences.

What it boils down to is that EE was doing something that--whether intentional or not--promoted piracy. They got called on it. So boo hoo, no modded smash for anyone.

[Dyne]

Nobody's getting livid. The problem is that you don't really have a point. You're trying to justify EE's actions with some pretty weak arguments. You did compare what EE did to what OCR does, trying to draw parallels and then doomsaying the future of OCR, saying that you're very worried; and yet we've shown you that they are very different things and that OCR isn't in any real danger because of those differences.

What it boils down to is that EE was doing something that--whether intentional or not--promoted piracy. They got called on it. So boo hoo, no modded smash for anyone.

I agree. Also, I likes my Smash the way it is. Let Nintendo handle the addition of Mega Man and Ridley.

[anosou]

Seriously though. How does OCR break copyright law?

Don't make a fool out of yourself, we do break copyright law but we do our best to make it so it doesn't hurt developers, composers or intellectual property holders.

[Bleck]

Don't make a fool out of yourself, we do break copyright law but we do our best to make it so it doesn't hurt developers, composers or intellectual property holders.

no

it's only against the law if

a) you charge for it

you hurt the sales of the original

neither of which are things that OCR does

[anosou]

no

it's only against the law if

a) you charge for it

you hurt the sales of the original

neither of which are things that OCR does

I might be used to Swedish law then, good to know. It's really hard to say if we hurt the sales or not though. Gotta research this, interesting

EDIT: you've been research'd: http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.php

• you CANNOT make a derivative work or arrangement for public use in any form

[Bleck]

http://www.pdinfo.com/copyrt.php

• you CANNOT make a derivative work or arrangement for public use in any form

• you CANNOT perform the music or lyrics in public
  
• you CANNOT play a recording of the music or lyrics in public--even if you own the CD

oh well might as well call the cops and have every musician on the planet arrested

[anosou]

• you CANNOT perform the music or lyrics in public
  
• you CANNOT play a recording of the music or lyrics in public--even if you own the CD

oh well might as well call the cops and have every musician on the planet arrested

True, that's why music copyright is especially tricky, but my point is valid and you are wrong about OCR not breaking copyright law which brings me to what I replied for:

lol I was right!

Please cite the law.

I linked something like that but as I said, as a Swedish citizen I can't really cite US law but I do trust the public domain project. Feel free to get a copy of the latest revision of US copyright law regarding music and e-mail me though!

EDIT: shit it's 3.37 in the morning, gotta sleep. later thread!

[Bleck]

yeah I guess you're right about that

[JackKieser]

@Dyne: And that I disagree with. I think that if I own something, I should have the right to modify it in any way I want, as long as it remains mine. And others should modify their property if they so choose. I think that the distinction between "you own the item" and "you own the idea" is dumb. I didn't buy a disc that happens to have bytes on it, I bought the disc because of the bytes. If I want to change it, it's mine to do as I please. Also, MLK broke the law with his sit ins. The point is that civil discourse usually is breaking the law. You usually can't change the law without it being broken first.

@AS: No. That is ONE ASPECT of ]EE['s problems. I disagree for sure with most of their problems, but that is one facet I'm still working out. I'm sorry that I come to conclusions over time? Oh, and ]EE[, under the changes I would hope to see to law, wouldn't have been distributing actual changed Brawl .ISO's, or even the means to change the .ISO, just the changes to be made. A fine distinction, but an important one. After all, I can tell you, "Hey, I found out that if you add this cherry flavor to Coke, you get cherry flavored Coke!", and I can even give you the flavoring if I have it on me, but I'm still not giving you Cherry Coke. Fine distinction.

@Darkesword: I do have a point, and I've said it a lot: I don't agree with current copyright laws. Also, that was a LOT of sarcasm I was getting.

@Bleck: See, under current copyright law, you don't HAVE to make money off of something in order for it to be copyright infringement. Just one of the drawbacks of our current system. EDIT: Damn, AS got it. Well done research, AS!

[Bleck]

@Bleck: See, under current copyright law, you don't HAVE to make money off of something in order for it to be copyright infringement.

yeah I suppose with that in mind all the gaming companies will be quick to shut OCR down OH WAIT

[JackKieser]

yeah I suppose with that in mind all the gaming companies will be quick to shut OCR down OH WAIT

Again, just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't. The law allows it; the game companies just choose not to exercise their rights to shut OCR down. I don't think they should have those rights, which is where I disagree with current law.

[Graycascade]

Livid

1. having a discolored, bluish appearance caused by a bruise, congestion of blood vessels, strangulation, etc., as the face, flesh, hands, or nails.

2. dull blue; dark, grayish-blue.

3. enraged; furiously angry: Willful stupidity makes me absolutely livid.

4. feeling or appearing strangulated because of strong emotion.

5. reddish or flushed.

6. deathly pale; pallid; ashen: Fear turned his cheeks livid for a moment.

Sorry, I kept seeing this word in the thread and wanted to make sure I'm not the only one who thought it sounded like the wrong word to use.

Now, to make my post (at least a little bit) relevant: Would pasteing that definition be an infringement on copyright law. I'm genuinely curious.

[JackKieser]

Livid

1. having a discolored, bluish appearance caused by a bruise, congestion of blood vessels, strangulation, etc., as the face, flesh, hands, or nails.

2. dull blue; dark, grayish-blue.

3. enraged; furiously angry: Willful stupidity makes me absolutely livid.

4. feeling or appearing strangulated because of strong emotion.

5. reddish or flushed.

6. deathly pale; pallid; ashen: Fear turned his cheeks livid for a moment.

Sorry, I kept seeing this word in the thread and wanted to make sure I'm not the only one who thought it sounded like the wrong word to use.

Now, to make my post (at least a little bit) relevant: Would pasteing that definition be an infringement on copyright law. I'm genuinely curious.

Yeah, I'll admit that I might have used a word a tad too strong. May bad, but I'm totally willing to admit that I made a mistake.

As for your question, I don't think so? I'm really not sure, but one would assume that the definition of a word is public domain, and thus can't be copyrighted. A word, in and of itself, can be trademarked, but I'm not sure if that would fit in this case.

[Graycascade]

Sorry if it sounded like I was attacking you, you're getting enough flak without me adding trivialities. I just have a thing for words being abused^^.

[Bleck]

Again, just because they haven't doesn't mean they can't.

again just because they can doesn't mean they will

[The Coop]

Hoooooooooooooooo boy! Ain't this thread the hot topic of the day?

@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.

If a company chooses to exercise their copyright protections, and tells djp to remove any remixes based off of their musical material, so be it. I see nothing wrong with them having the ability to do so. It is, quite frankly, within their rights as the IP owners. Virtually every remixer here knows that what we're doing (free game music remixes) is in a gray area at the absolute best, and knows that if Capcom, Sega, Nintendo or anyone else decides they don't like what we're doing, our remixes will come down. We also know there's no real legal recourse we could take upon a C&D issuance, as sites like OCR, VGMusic, and VGMixX, are all at the mercy of the game companies and composers they're trying to honor. We know this, and accept it as a chance you take in doing this craft.

But, the fact that we've gotten to do this as long as we have, after all the publicity OCR and game music remixing has gotten, is a good sign for the future of the hobby. Still, if OCR goes down someday do to a C&D, the end won't have come out of left field. We'll all know why it happened, and that the companies that brought it about were within their rights to do it.

Now, regarding the SSBB hacking... as I understand it, the moment you start tinkering with a game to change parts of it (modding, ROM hacking, etc.), start a remake of it using all the licensed characters and such, or use sprites from it to make a fan-game, what you're doing is always going to be at the discretion of the IP owner. If they see you're actions as a threat to their income, or they don't want you messing with what they view as the integrity of their product (like, as an extreme, not wanting someone to make a Sonic 2 porno... BLAST PROCESSING!), and they tell you to stop what you're doing, you have to stop. That's all there is to it. You're toying with what isn't supposed to be toyed with, unless explicitly stated otherwise by the company (like those that openly support modding communities, or that include editing tools with the games). As such, I don't see a reason to try and change laws so that hackers (and by extension, fan-game makers) get more protections or liberties, when they're tinkering with an IP that was never theirs to begin with. It's one thing when a company openly supports modders, and then abruptly changes their minds, and starts shutting people down. I can see people getting upset for a reason there (companies can legally do it I think, but it's still a chintzy move). But shutting down people hacking games that were never supposed to be hacked in the first place? I don't see a reason to get upset over that.

Anyway, that's my stance on all this, JackKieser. I know you're disappointed at the loss of ]EE['s project, and others are as well to be sure. But you all had to know that a C&D was always a distinct possibility once other users found out about what was being done, and word got around the web.

And for a hell of it, here's a random thought...

Why do game hacking groups always seem to go public with what they're doing? Why don't they just stay silent about it until it's finished, THEN go public with a completed product? At least then it could be quickly shared around the Net before any potential C&D could come about to shut it down.

[Bleck]

Why do game hacking groups always seem to go public with what they're doing? Why don't they just stay silent about it until it's finished, THEN go public with a completed product? At least then it could be quickly shared around the Net before any potential C&D could come about to shut it down.

THIS. RIGHT. HERE.

big text!

[JackKieser]

again just because they can doesn't mean they will

And just because they won't, that doesn't mean that they can't. We can go in circles all day/night (depending on time zone). Like I said earlier in the thread, I don't like there even being the possibility. I'm not much of a betting person, and the way things are, the good nature of people is the only thing keeping CEO's from collecting their checks, and I don't trust 'the good nature of people'.

EDIT @ The Coop: I totally understand. At that point, it comes down to a difference in ideology. I know that, for instance, ]EE[ breaks copyright by making hacks of unoriginal characters, and I can never defend that. But, as it stands, they can't even make hacks for original characters because they don't 'own' their Brawl discs (I'm making Paul Rudd's "Role Models" face right now), and I don't agree with that at all.

In terms of OCR, I think that a completely different part of copyright law is too harsh, that being derivative works. I don't see how OCR is in a legal gray area, but off-brand Fruit Loops aren't. All or nothing, you know? If that is 'far enough away' from copyrighted material to be safe from prosecution, then OCR should be, too. And so, I think 'derivative works' laws should be re-worked to give the public more rights. (BTW, I lol'ed hard at that Blast Processing bit.)

Oh, and nail on the head with the "why not release when it's done?!" thing.

[JackKieser]

Ugh, legal-speak makes my head hurt. When it says 'sounds', what does it mean exactly? And are there specific clauses in terms of music composition, as opposed to just sound recording?

Oh, and just for clarity, fair use says "factors to be considered", which means that a judge has to make the call. We can't judge fair use without a... judge. You know what I mean.

EDIT: This is what I found in a quick search.

To be an infringement the “derivative work” must be “based upon the copyrighted work,” and the definition in section 101 refers to “a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted.” Thus, to constitute a violation of section 106 (2), the infringing work must incorporate a portion of the copyrighted work in some form...

Can be found here. Hopefully that helps? Digging through pages of legal-speak is a freakin' artform, I swear.

[SoulinEther]

For posterity's sake, NO discussion of copyright is complete without including the views of Richard Stallman!

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html Boo on copyright111!1 (i haven't read it in a while, not sure what he really says, but just skimming the last paragraph, basically: copyright should be for users, not the creators/publishers... if we don't accept certain copyright powers, then they stop applying hurray!)

And this intellectual property? Ho hum!

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html (well this is a more interesting read).

And no, I don't belittle Stallman's views.. and I'm not pushing my anti-copyright views either Just posting it to prove a point that this thread is pretty useless.

Mr. JackKeiser, I suggest instead of trying a method of FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt) with the larger OCR community, you instead approach DJP in private about this matter - I'm sure you'll have your fears assuaged. Or.. you can have a nice discussion with him about what you might do, and things can be handled in a more formal / less chaotic manner.

[JackKieser]

For posterity's sake, NO discussion of copyright is complete without including the views of Richard Stallman!

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/reevaluating-copyright.html Boo on copyright111!1 (i haven't read it in a while, not sure what he really says, but just skimming the last paragraph, basically: copyright should be for users, not the creators/publishers... if we don't accept certain copyright powers, then they stop applying hurray!)

And this intellectual property? Ho hum!

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html (well this is a more interesting read).

And no, I don't belittle Stallman's views.. and I'm not pushing my anti-copyright views either Just posting it to prove a point that this thread is pretty useless.

Mr. JackKeiser, I suggest instead of trying a method of FUD (fear/uncertainty/doubt) with the larger OCR community, you instead approach DJP in private about this matter - I'm sure you'll have your fears assuaged. Or.. you can have a nice discussion with him about what you might do, and things can be handled in a more formal / less chaotic manner.

Oh GNU... how open source is the way to go. Haha... If I was going to try to change something on OCR, I'd go to DJP, but as it stands, I'm just trying to get a dialogue going on the scope of copyright law. Discourse is healthy. Thanks for posting Mr. Stallman's stuff, though.

[DjSammyG]

man, if this isn't ths biggest bandwagon circlejerk public sacrifice of a forum member I've seen all month

[Dyne]

Ugh, legal-speak makes my head hurt. When it says 'sounds', what does it mean exactly? And are there specific clauses in terms of music composition, as opposed to just sound recording?

Oh, and just for clarity, fair use says "factors to be considered", which means that a judge has to make the call. We can't judge fair use without a... judge. You know what I mean.

EDIT: This is what I found in a quick search.

Can be found here. Hopefully that helps? Digging through pages of legal-speak is a freakin' artform, I swear.

But you've basically made our argument for us here. As did dPaladin when he posted this:

The exclusive right of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clause (2) of section 106 is limited to the right to prepare a derivative work in which the actual sounds fixed in the sound recording are rearranged, remixed, or otherwise altered in sequence or quality. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1) and (2) of section 106 do not extend to the making or duplication of another sound recording that consists entirely of an independent fixation of other sounds, even though such sounds imitate or simulate those in the copyrighted sound recording. The exclusive rights of the owner of copyright in a sound recording under clauses (1), (2), and (3) of section 106 do not apply to sound recordings included in educational television and radio programs (as defined in section 397 of title 47) distributed or transmitted by or through public broadcasting entities (as defined by section 118 (g)): [1] Provided, That copies or phonorecords of said programs are not commercially distributed by or through public broadcasting entities to the general public.

So now what are you trying to get at? Because obviously, remixing/rearrangement is a definitive GRAY AREA. If it weren't, if it were a violation of copyright law, OCR would've been torn down by the music industry years ago already. But it hasn't, and no, I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying the likelihood of that happening is next to nil at this moment. Anything is possible.

This thread is so laughable. Redundancy at its best.

[JackKieser]

But you've basically made our argument for us here. As did dPaladin when he posted this:

So now what are you trying to get at? Because obviously, remixing/rearrangement is a definitive GRAY AREA. If it weren't, if it were a violation of copyright law, OCR would've been torn down by the music industry years ago already. But it hasn't, and no, I'm not saying it can't, I'm just saying the likelihood of that happening is next to nil at this moment. Anything is possible.

This thread is so laughable. Redundancy at its best.

Because what I found says that it constitutes an infringement if the derivative work holds part of the original work. I'm sure well-paid lawyers could make a good enough case to convince a judge/jury. The point is that gray area is not good. "Next to nil" =/= "nil". Personally, that's not good enough for me, but it may be good enough for you. Which is fine; if that's the case, though, there's still no reason that we can't strive to make the gray area "nil". I want no gray area, and contrary to popular belief, I think the way to do that is to give the people more rights, not the current copyright holders.