Because Evil Sega hates freedom, lulz and living in your moms basement.
Watch what apps you pirate
- Thread starter Shakey
- Start date
- Status
J
Jiarn
Someone explain how they lose anything if the programmers don't charge anything for these games?
They lose control over their product. It is, in the end, their product. Not some bored fans.
Trademarks must be actively used and protected or else they are lost.
J
Jiarn
Control = ?
Again, how do they "lose" anything by fan made products?
Again, how do they "lose" anything by fan made products?
J
Jiarn
Not saying they had a right. I'm just curious what they "lose" when a fan makes a game, based on their content, releases it free and it's well recieved. So far only Valve is the only company without their head in their ass, as they showed with the Black Mesa remake.
They could lose revenue from future re-releases, if they choose to do that. People are also stupid, if there is a huge bug/flaw/virus in the game customers may not bother with that brand again even though that particular release was made by fans. It's about controlling the brand name and the image associated with it. They lose that with these fan made games.
J
Jiarn
If they were planning future re-releases, then yes, I can understand. If not, pointless ass-hattery.
(As of yet, there has been no Metroid 2, Chrono Trigger (done in 3d), or Streets of Rage remakes, so they are currently under ass-hattery department)
Bug/Flaw/Virus in a game they're downloading from a site that clearly states that it's fan-made with virtually no other way of obtaining the game? That, I can't see as a valid point.
(As of yet, there has been no Metroid 2, Chrono Trigger (done in 3d), or Streets of Rage remakes, so they are currently under ass-hattery department)
Bug/Flaw/Virus in a game they're downloading from a site that clearly states that it's fan-made with virtually no other way of obtaining the game? That, I can't see as a valid point.
Chrono Trigger was re released just a few years ago as a DS title, with bonus content.
Smacking down a fan project dedicated to your game is an unfortunate event, but I understand why it happens. Trademarks have to be controlled, otherwise they fall into open use. If sony made a super mario game without permission, they'd get sued. But if a fan group made it without permission, and nintendo did nothing, there would be precedent for sony to make one, claiming that nintendo is no longer guarding that trademark.
Of course, if sega wanted to be cool, they could have just given those guys a license.
Smacking down a fan project dedicated to your game is an unfortunate event, but I understand why it happens. Trademarks have to be controlled, otherwise they fall into open use. If sony made a super mario game without permission, they'd get sued. But if a fan group made it without permission, and nintendo did nothing, there would be precedent for sony to make one, claiming that nintendo is no longer guarding that trademark.
Of course, if sega wanted to be cool, they could have just given those guys a license.
J
Jiarn
Yes, they ported over the SNES version with some updates. The fan remake was fully 3D. Hence I wrote it the way I did.
I disagree with your example of Sony making a Mario game. Sony would charge for it, and that's where I can see problems occuring. If a game is made and given out free, I don't see the "harm" that requires the game company to step in.
I disagree with your example of Sony making a Mario game. Sony would charge for it, and that's where I can see problems occuring. If a game is made and given out free, I don't see the "harm" that requires the game company to step in.
Because it sets precedent. Like Ravenpoe said the way is then paved for anyone to make derivative works.
Think of it this way. If Steamboat Willie went into public domain then anyone would be able to make a derivative work of that cartoon using those characters. This would mean that someone other than Disney would be able to make a Mickey Mouse cartoon, and if someone made an incredibly vulgar and offensive cartoon I assure you that it would be associated with Disney, not the makers.
J
Jiarn
They do make vulgar cartoons all the time. It's called hentai. It's widely distributed through the internet. Noone is saying that Disney made it. So I still don't see the validity of the point.
J
Jiarn
Again, for no reason other than asshattery. (As long as there is not money involved or an exact remake in the works already)
Enforcement of copyright is up to the copyright holder: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement#Enforcement_Responsibility
They don't do it to be asshats, they do it because they see it as a threat. Not all do, obviously. If they felt there would be a benefit, they might encourage it, as some have done. But the benefits are not as clear as the threats are. Why let the genie out of the bottle if he's just going to run away?
They don't do it to be asshats, they do it because they see it as a threat. Not all do, obviously. If they felt there would be a benefit, they might encourage it, as some have done. But the benefits are not as clear as the threats are. Why let the genie out of the bottle if he's just going to run away?
Exactly. Minnie porn isn't that big of a threat. A game remake is. Yet, it's two different companies so it really isn't that great of a comparison.[/Quote]
J
Jiarn
It was as much as a threat as the porn. It was free, there wasn't a remake being made in any of the three cases of the cease and desist orders. So no, I don't see your point.
If the games were degrading, hateful, spiteful or being sold? I'd be with you all in this boat. These were nothing but tributes and fan love put into these games, all of which were placed on cease and desist towards the end of their creation. So yeah, blatant ass-hattery.
If the games were degrading, hateful, spiteful or being sold? I'd be with you all in this boat. These were nothing but tributes and fan love put into these games, all of which were placed on cease and desist towards the end of their creation. So yeah, blatant ass-hattery.
Enforcement on a case-by-case basis is an extremely sticky issue. If they let go an instance like this, a similar project that goes as far in using their IP (but in a way they find objectionable) now has legal precedent for not needing to ask the trademark holder's permission. They would probably still win the first few times, but if they keep tacitly (as opposed to explicitly) allowing fans to push through projects, eventually they would definitely lose the trademark/copyright.
Also, Streets of Rage is currently for sale on iTunes. This means that SEGA would be competing for sales with a derivative work that they did not authorize if they allowed this to go through.
J
Jiarn
Isn't copyright a "right"? Something they can choose to enforce or not enforce on a case to case basis?
As in, not a defensible use against them if they shut down one thing but not another?
"We choose to let this through, not that and it's our right to make that decision?"
As in, not a defensible use against them if they shut down one thing but not another?
"We choose to let this through, not that and it's our right to make that decision?"
Not exactly. A company can choose whether it's worth it to enforce an infringement of their IP rights, but if a similar infringement of the same scale takes place subsequently, their choosing to ignore the first one can make it difficult (though not impossible) to enforce the second one, and all the others that come after.
That's likely the reason why they didn't C&D these guys until it was definitely going to be distributed. Actual software distribution over the internet using your trademarks is a much bigger scale than 3 guys working on something in their spare time over 5 years saying that they're going to release it over the internet.
That's likely the reason why they didn't C&D these guys until it was definitely going to be distributed. Actual software distribution over the internet using your trademarks is a much bigger scale than 3 guys working on something in their spare time over 5 years saying that they're going to release it over the internet.
J
Jiarn
So pretty much yeah, ass-hattery. Gotcha.
It is what the copyright holders perceive as a threat to them, not what you perceive as a threat to them. I think that is the part that is slipping past you.
Let me put it another way:
A bunch of guys talking on the internet about developing something that would be an infringement is unlikely to affect future sales related to their IP. Lots of garage-coding projects fall apart all the time, or never even make it past the planning stage. You could spend $thousands in legal fees on discovery and the C&Ds against people who will most likely never get far enough to do anything, so most companies ignore this kind of thing.
Said guys actually release their infringing software. Now there's actually something out there that can threaten current/future sales. It's not talk anymore, it's an actual product, which also makes it much easier to find the perpetrators for. Hence, this is the point where companies tend to act.
A bunch of guys talking on the internet about developing something that would be an infringement is unlikely to affect future sales related to their IP. Lots of garage-coding projects fall apart all the time, or never even make it past the planning stage. You could spend $thousands in legal fees on discovery and the C&Ds against people who will most likely never get far enough to do anything, so most companies ignore this kind of thing.
Said guys actually release their infringing software. Now there's actually something out there that can threaten current/future sales. It's not talk anymore, it's an actual product, which also makes it much easier to find the perpetrators for. Hence, this is the point where companies tend to act.
Also, I like Valve as much as anyone, but you realize that the Black Mesa re-make is not a standalone game, but a total conversion mod, right?
As in, it's explicitly covered by Valve's mod license, and requires that you own or buy one of Valve's current-gen Source games.
As in, once it's released, there will be a whole slew of people who will have to go out and buy, or re-download, TF2, L4D2, Portal 2, or the Orange Box. There's foreseeable revenue benefits from allowing it to be released for not a whole lot of risk (since HL:Source is not exactly their highest-selling HL game).
Valve aren't saints for overlooking IP infringement or anything like that, they've just set up their entire business to monetize it with every new game they release.
Sega is in a completely different boat with a '91 Genesis game.
As in, it's explicitly covered by Valve's mod license, and requires that you own or buy one of Valve's current-gen Source games.
As in, once it's released, there will be a whole slew of people who will have to go out and buy, or re-download, TF2, L4D2, Portal 2, or the Orange Box. There's foreseeable revenue benefits from allowing it to be released for not a whole lot of risk (since HL:Source is not exactly their highest-selling HL game).
Valve aren't saints for overlooking IP infringement or anything like that, they've just set up their entire business to monetize it with every new game they release.
Sega is in a completely different boat with a '91 Genesis game.
Aren't Valve explicitly involved with helping them make Black Mesa anyway? I know they talked about letting them distribute it via Steam, and have given them access to a lot of assets to get it done. Once the company is actively helping you, it's apparent that they ARE defending their copyright by assuring the quality of a tribute to it. Once they got involved, it threw out all the issues.
J
Jiarn
Exactly. Instead of shutting down the project, they gave the creators an opportunity to continue their work within their company. Aka, not ass hats.
The way the IP was being used was not the same in a very big way. Licensed mod /= unauthorized sequelWhether Valve or Sega are asshats or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
figmentPez
Staff member
They also had them change the name to drop "Source" from the title. I think that's because Source is a trademark issue, not just copyright.
J
Jiarn
It wasn't a licensed mod. It was a game being developed as a remake using the same source engine. The Streets of Rage remake was completely made from scratch. That's the only difference.
Whether Valve or Sega are asshats or not has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
No, it's a mod, and it will require a legally-purchase Source-based game to play. Which is specifically licensed according to the Source SDK licensing clause (2.C) in the Steam Subscriber agreement.
The Streets of Rage remake was a completely unlicensed, unauthorized use of trademark names, designs, and gameplay that belonged to a company which does not provide tools or even limited licenses to mod/copy/distribute such things.
J
Jiarn
Yes, it's a mod. The thing is, it wasn't created by Valve. It was a group of people, who used the mod software to create their own remake.
For the third time, they used the Source SDK. Which has a licensing clause attached to it allowing people who are not Valve to make stuff with it. That's why Valve released it in the first place! So people who were not them could make legal mods with the same tools.
EDIT: You seem to think that Valve did all the legal stuff after the Black Mesa re-make came to light, when they actually did it years before when they released GoldSrc (the modified Quake engine behind HL) to whomever wanted it.
<--- this conversationNo kidding...
- Status