RPGHQ

SoLong wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:41

maidenhaver wrote: ↑ February 28th, 2024, 06:45

Garden of Eyes: https://www.patreon.com/posts/welcome-to-of-89232755

Bandai:
https://shop.bandai.com/contact/

The post explicitely says that the mods will be released for free when they're actually done.

Getting early access to explicitely unfinished work (which is basically paying for the priviledge of being a beta tester) likely isn't copyright infringement for the same reason a modder plugging their patreon isn't.

I want you to reread what you just wrote and then try to understand how retarded you sound.

SoLong wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:41

likely isn't copyright infringement

Nearly all mods are copyright infringement, developers(other than Nintendo) just don't care as long as you aren't charging money. Many make this an explicit policy(see op with regards to Larian.)

An example of a mod that would likely not be copyright infringement is a completely new texture pack for a game created(and owned) by the modder. As long as the pack itself was not based upon existing work from the game, that is.

Nooneatall wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:49

I want you to reread what you just wrote and then try to understand how retarded you sound.

Do I need to explain the difference between a ToS agreement and an actual law now?

No, I don't because you aren't worth the effort. Glad we cleared that up.

SoLong wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:53

Nooneatall wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:49

I want you to reread what you just wrote and then try to understand how retarded you sound.

Do I need to explain the difference between a ToS agreement and an actual law now?

No, I don't because you aren't worth the effort. Glad we cleared that up.

Not only are you retarded, you talk and act like a woman. Too bad you'll never actually be one. Go dilate

rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:52

Nearly all mods are copyright infringement, developers(other than Nintendo) just don't care as long as you aren't charging money. Many make this an explicit policy(see op with regards to Larian.)

An example of a mod that would likely not be copyright infringement is a completely new texture pack for a game created(and owned) by the modder. As long as the pack itself was not based upon existing work from the game, that is.

I mean the modder did say it's "new" stuff. I'd also argue that a texture pack wouldn't be infringing even if the modder didn't own or create the base game as long as he made the textures himself.

Also: Ignore the previous post about Garden of Eyes, I just noticed a mention of "restored" content which means that there is likely some use of in-game assests that were dummied out.

And frankly I don't care enough about Elden Ring to figure out if the modder's work is sufficiently transformative to get around copyright.

Nooneatall wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:57

Not only are you retarded, you talk and act like a woman. Too bad you'll never actually be one. Go dilate

Speaking from experience? Must be frustrating that even fake pretend women wouldn't want to touch you huh?

rusty_shackleford wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:52

SoLong wrote: ↑ March 1st, 2024, 00:41

likely isn't copyright infringement

Nearly all mods are copyright infringement, developers(other than Nintendo) just don't care as long as you aren't charging money. Many make this an explicit policy(see op with regards to Larian.)

An example of a mod that would likely not be copyright infringement is a completely new texture pack for a game created(and owned) by the modder. As long as the pack itself was not based upon existing work from the game, that is.

The open source devs would claim the texture pack is a derivative work because it uses the particular texture format, etc. suitable to the game. This is how they argue that Nvidia's drivers written for Windows are derivative works of Linux. (Because Nvidia ported them to Linux.) This even extends to claiming other open source projects written for other OSes are derivative works because the licensing doesn't follow their GNU cult.

anonusername wrote: ↑ March 2nd, 2024, 15:18

The open source devs would claim the texture pack is a derivative work because it uses the particular texture format, etc. suitable to the game. This is how they argue that Nvidia's drivers written for Windows are derivative works of Linux. (Because Nvidia ported them to Linux.) This even extends to claiming other open source projects written for other OSes are derivative works because the licensing doesn't follow their GNU cult.

Uh, no. Formats can't be copyright protected, they can only be trademark protected (so you can use the format but can't call it a whatever the trademark is). The software used for creating or reading it can be copyrighted though. Copyright protects the tangible expression of an idea. Also, file extensions are functional, and functional uses cannot be trademarked. So Microsoft, for example, can't claim that you writing an .exe file is copyright or trademark infringement.

So no, a texture format can't be copyrighted, only the data of the texture itself. If you created the texture yourself then *you* would be the copyright holder of the texture and the devs can go pound sand.

SoLong wrote: ↑ March 2nd, 2024, 16:00

anonusername wrote: ↑ March 2nd, 2024, 15:18

The open source devs would claim the texture pack is a derivative work because it uses the particular texture format, etc. suitable to the game. This is how they argue that Nvidia's drivers written for Windows are derivative works of Linux. (Because Nvidia ported them to Linux.) This even extends to claiming other open source projects written for other OSes are derivative works because the licensing doesn't follow their GNU cult.

Uh, no. Formats can't be copyright protected, they can only be trademark protected (so you can use the format but can't call it a whatever the trademark is). The software used for creating or reading it can be copyrighted though. Copyright protects the tangible expression of an idea. Also, file extensions are functional, and functional uses cannot be trademarked. So Microsoft, for example, can't claim that you writing an .exe file is copyright or trademark infringement.

So no, a texture format can't be copyrighted, only the data of the texture itself. If you created the texture yourself then *you* would be the copyright holder of the texture and the devs can go pound sand.

I never said the devs were correct... Note that they think Canonical is violating their copyright in the official Enterprise versions of Ubuntu by bundling the "wrong" open source drivers that use their ABI. These are not people who actually understand the law.

These are people who think static vs. dynamic linking would somehow make a difference as to whether copyright law considers your code a derivative work. (My suspicion is that, if it ever went to trial, static linking to GPLv2 code would just make complying with the GPL more complicated, not actually mandate the release of your own source code. You would almost certainly be in compliance simply by releasing your build system with the GPLed code present, but the proprietary code redacted or stubbed out. Unless, of course, your code was a genuine derivative work, which is a legal and not a technical question.)

That said, I think you could absolutely protect a format with copyright if the right legal tactics were used. In particular, by embedding DRM into the format such that the format cannot be utilized unauthorized without meeting the DMCA definition of bypassing DRM. Microsoft tried something like this for their "open-source" DX12 shader format. Compiling DX12 shaders requires the use of a proprietary Microsoft "signing" library that actually just generates a modified MD5 checksum. It is, apparently, trivial to reverse-engineer and write your own version. However, legally MS has a decent claim that doing so is bypassing their DRM which protects against using unauthorized shaders on Windows. They are unlikely to apply it vs. an open source project, but I doubt any corporate competitors would be willing to take that risk.

EDIT: This is actually pretty similar to what Nintendo is doing vs. Switch hacking/emulation. They are arguing that, even if the emulator doesn't include any copyrighted code and it can be used with your legally owned switch and game library, the ability to load a Switch's legitimate decryption keys makes Yuzu a tool for bypassing Nintendo's DRM. Therefore, it is a violation of the DMCA. It doesn't matter that their game format cannot be copyrighted directly.

I think I'm gonna report the tards itt calling a guy with a wig "she".

Eyestabber wrote: ↑ March 5th, 2024, 11:20

I think I'm gonna report the tards itt calling a guy with a wig "she".

Playing BG3 and modding in Matt Smith's face is absolutely something a woman would do.

Fucking with modders is the gift that keeps giving.

Hijacking this discussion to reiterate my suggestion of demanding a certain minimum number of posts to be allowed to see member-only posts @rusty_shackleford

Is this about all kinds of barter or only about money so I can still pay in sex?