Sign in to follow this  
JackKieser

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

Recommended Posts

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 :D 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :D 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because what I found says that it constitutes an infringement if the derivative work holds part of the original work; unless of course, the work is completely recreated (not sampled) and is substantially different than the original -- because dPaladin just posted this and I'm an intelligent person who reads things.

fixedlol

The thing you quoted was an explanation of the scope of section 106, which includes clause 2:

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

The thing I quoted was a clarification of the limits of the same section and clause, explaining that not everything is a derivative work. People have gotten away with publishing and selling stuff that's a lot more similar to the original material than OCReMixes are.

Can I put on my crown as winner of this thread now?

EDIT: So the moral of the story is that you have be careful as all hell when you're dealing with legal questions. If you address legal concerns without referencing the actual law, then you run the risk of being totally full of shit. If you DO reference the law, you still run the risk of being totally full of shit because you'll cite one clause and there will be like 10 pages of clarification somewhere else that will ruin your argument. That's why there are lawyers; which, I once again feel the need to point out, we are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so guys who HACKED the game, with characters that were COPYRIGHTED (that includes their assets of the character models), was INFRINGED. Nintendo did what they thought they had to.

And please, firmware updates come on almost every Nintendo Wii game released, and each one makes it harder and harder for the homebrew/hacker/emulator community to break, so don't think they aren't watching the modding.

As far as this site? Come on, Do you ever see where the remixers have to give due credit to the composers of the songs on this site? And what stage/scene? There hasn't been much of a case of when the original composer has requested OC take of a song, it's happened on the rarest of occasions.

OC doesn't get financial gain from this site, minus t-shirts. If they started to charge for songs, then you would see a hammer crack down.

And even if OC shut down, there's dozens, if not hundreds of remix sites out there of the same nature.

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

You should read the Soulja Boy thread... eyes roll...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
man, if this isn't ths biggest bandwagon circlejerk public sacrifice of a forum member I've seen all month

Public sacrifice? No. Heated at times sure, but not a sacrifice. That term is reserved for what happened to Dewey 32167 fairly regularly :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He still isn't getting the message, but that's aside from the point. What we know, is what we know, and any one of us can research it via the appropriate channels. Unfortunately, there's no talking to someone who isn't willing to accept the fact that ripping open a console with the sole purpose of modifying its normal operating functions so that you can play pirated games, is a HUGE issue with Nintendo. And their intellectual property, which includes, but is not limited to, the game console, and software contained on game discs, is not to be tampered with whatsoever.

But hey, I guess I'm just grasping at straws at this point, hoping he'll get it, and that we can end this thread as friends and be happy and whatever. I don't know. Sorry, but the opinion I have of the topic is that it's moot as far as Nintendo goes, as it's their hard work and efforts that are being ripped off. But I guess that's just me, sorry I care about how other people feel (other people being software and hardware designers).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And their intellectual property, which includes, but is not limited to, the game console, and software contained on game discs, is not to be tampered with whatsoever.

Um, I'm a little confused. Just to clarify, does this mean that:

1) when you buy a game, you own the disk, but do not own the software? Instead you are... Oh, crap, I can't remember the term... Nintendo uses this term whenever they talk about VC games...

2) any fanmade game that uses any original work (artwork, music, etc) is illegal, whether or not they make any profit? Also, then what about games that use derivative work(i.e. redrawn sprites, etc.)?

3) while companies may release packets for fan sites (I hear), aren't they technically illegal because their using property that isn't theirs, even if they acknowledge this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway reverse engineering is illegal.

Is that why they haven't shut down Von Ritcher's SR388 and DrMario64's AM2R? Because they created their own source code?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh won't anyone think about Warranty?

IP issues aside, crackin' a Wii open violates your warranty whch is a direct financial loss, and when 12 yr-old Jimmy breaks his Wii trying to get cool new characters he found in a tutorial online, Mr. Jimmy's Mom is gonna be furious to find out the warranty was voided in a hacking/modding attempt.

These cases may have already happened, it possibly could be the reason why this resulted in a C&D, if not this reason alone justifies a C&D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is that why they haven't shut down Von Ritcher's SR388 and DrMario64's AM2R? Because they created their own source code?

They pick and choose what they want to shut down; perhaps they don't see either game as a dilution of trademark or a threat to sales of a future product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to read all 9 pages of this thread let alone written copyright law... but I will put forward a very generic/vague agreement that it's always sort of tragic the way that corporations seem to have the worst aim and timing with their C&D's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He still isn't getting the message, but that's aside from the point. What we know, is what we know, and any one of us can research it via the appropriate channels. Unfortunately, there's no talking to someone who isn't willing to accept the fact that ripping open a console with the sole purpose of modifying its normal operating functions so that you can play pirated games, is a HUGE issue with Nintendo. And their intellectual property, which includes, but is not limited to, the game console, and software contained on game discs, is not to be tampered with whatsoever.

But hey, I guess I'm just grasping at straws at this point, hoping he'll get it, and that we can end this thread as friends and be happy and whatever. I don't know. Sorry, but the opinion I have of the topic is that it's moot as far as Nintendo goes, as it's their hard work and efforts that are being ripped off. But I guess that's just me, sorry I care about how other people feel (other people being software and hardware designers).

I just wanted to respond to this before I go to sleep. Again, I don't think you've quite been getting my side of the message here. I understand that, for instance, modding and homebrew is breaking the law. I understand that Nintendo takes a firm stance against it. I understand that. I really do get that it's against the law.

I don't think that it should be.

I disagree with a basic tenant of these laws, namely that you don't have the right to mod something for personal use that you yourself legally acquired. I think that is blatant exploitation of the consumer. Me modding my system is my own business. If I have the parts and the know-how to mod my Wii to play DVD's, then I should have the right to do so; saves me money. If everyone has the same capabilities, that's the invisible hand of the market moving Nintendo to make a Wii that plays DVD's for cheaper than it takes me to mod the current gen hardware. If not, they lose money. Their loss for not following the consumer. Not everyone is going to agree with me. That's fine; this is a socially progressive way of thinking. But I (and people who do agree) have beef with the current system, and would like it to be changed. I'm sorry if you see that as being stubborn, but we could easily peg you as stubbornly sticking to convention, so it goes both ways.

Demeaning each other, either way, gets us nowhere, so try not to do that. 'Night guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok well I know this Jack guy from Smashboards and he pretty much never wins, same goes for here as well so I'm just gonna get to what I want to say. Isn't OCR kinda protected anyways by some parody act or whatever, kinda like what Weird Al does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok well I know this Jack guy from Smashboards and he pretty much never wins, same goes for here as well so I'm just gonna get to what I want to say. Isn't OCR kinda protected anyways by some parody act or whatever, kinda like what Weird Al does?

Yes, because it's about winning? Not really. Oh, and parody only is applicable when some form of satire is in use, which isn't the case here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's one song. That one song is not indicative of the site as a whole. That song is protected; every other one without some sort of satire, however, is still in the gray area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is scary when you think about it. Death comes suddenly and there is no notion of good or bad. It leaves, not a dramatic feeling but great emptiness. When you lose someone you loved very much you feel this big empty space and think, 'If I had known this was coming I would have done things differently.'

I love you. Awesome remix btw.

On a relevant note: So i'm gonna go out on a limb here and say we can't change your mind because you are a little bit butthurt about a mod for wii not coming out because of big bad Nintendo and the laws that back it up? Also wanting a place to complain hoping to get some sympathy for something explicitly illegal?

I agree with your view on allowing mods and modding but not on how you're going about it. I recommend going the political route rather than the fansite route. We really don't have the direct power to change the copyright laws at a wim. Go talk to Uncle Sam about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think most of us understand that you aren't trying to rally us to ]EE['s defense (at least, not at this point in the thread). You are just frustrated with the way copyright law works and that it would lead to the death of a fan project with potential. We can all sympathize there. We've all felt those pangs of disappointment, be it over this or Chrono Resurrection or the DOA texture modding that Team Ninja stopped a few years ago. In an ideal world, fans with pure intentions would be free to contribute their creativity and the real pirates would be stopped.

But I think most of us also know that this is just the way copyright law is. Nintendo has every right to protect their IP. Copyright law may have it's flaws, but there's not a whole lot to be done about it here, and the fate of ]EE['s project doesn't come as a great surprise.

In summary: "Yeah, it sucks, but them's the breaks."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sephfire hit it the closest as far as I'm concerned (thanks for the level headedness :)). The only difference is that he says "them's the breaks", where as I say "them's the breaks now, but we should be able to make thems not the breaks." Obviously you guys are content with law as it is now. That's perfectly fine, and I'm not going to demean anyone in this thread for that. I'm (and most proponents of a more "open source" way of thinking, for lack of a better term) just not content, and so I wanted to open up a dialog. Let it be known that I don't defend breaking copyright by making textures of copyrighted characters (Megaman, Ridley, etc.), but the fact that modding is still a restricted act just upsets me to no end. The fact that you can own something without actually 'owning' it is totally wrong, as far as I'm concerned, and should be changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can "disagree" with Nintendo's rights to shut down the Smash Bros hack all you want, but that doesn't change a thing. Everyone in this thread has provided hard evidence as to precisely why it was within Nintendo's rights to do what they did, and all you've come up with in reply are trivial technicalities and I-don't-agree-with's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this