Utter b0ll0x

po0k

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/10/tecmo_sues_xbox_game_hackers/

Protecting Ip is one thing, but ffs like :mad:

ambro25

Circulating 'Naked' skins/mods are akin to defamation.
Have to agree with TECMO on this one.

Chalk

jesus , its not like by doing it , there making the games thats sold any different.

seems like a bit of publicity for the fact that you can make the girls nekkid inn doa:bv

btw, wasnt that mod listed in EDGE in the issue with review of bv ?

ambro25

It was a topic of EDGE aeons ago, even made the cover (but not in naked form).

What I am saying is that, insofar as a principle of law is concerned, Tecmo is right and the modders are wrong. The morality of it is irrelevant: whether Tecmo are fair or not to sue those modders/hackers has nothing to do whatsoever with whether they can avail of IP protection law or not (EEF opinion notwithstanding). Simple.

But I'll concede that a lot of people don't understand, or find it hard to come to terms with the fact that, law and fairness are totally unrelated matters.

Goodshape

The harm isn't just to the wholesome values of Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball

Wholesome? Aye. Right. :rolleyes:

Utter bollox alright. And $1000 - $100,000 per skin. Flupin chancers.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Circulating 'Naked' skins/mods are akin to defamation.
Have to agree with TECMO on this one.

Arse.

ambro25

Mine or yours?

That's constructive... muppet

sound_wave

what a load of ol tripe

Otacon

I bet the reason so many think it's b0ll0x is cos ye have only found out now that you can actually get the characters 'nekkid'!!!

Peteee

Its stupid, twould be akin to Ford sueing someone for painting their cars themselves (I think)

Oh and otacon, get back to work ya moocher

Signed Your Boss!

petes

That is ****e. end of message

ambro25

Peteee wrote:

Its stupid, twould be akin to Ford sueing someone for painting their cars themselves (I think)

Ya think wrong, unfortunately - you can't protect a Ford (or anyother car) with copyright, that's why Ford couldn't sue you if you painted your Mondeo girlie pink with frog-green dots.

And here's me trying to have an educated debate with posters in the Game Forum but, by the look of things and their vocabulary, what's the point? :rolleyes:

petes

ambro25 wrote:

Circulating 'Naked' skins/mods are akin to defamation.
Have to agree with TECMO on this one.

Defamation of a computer game character. Really :rolleyes:

Goodshape

You're so great ambro25. Badge on the way.

Whatever about the strict legalities of modding someone elses 'intellectual property', it's a bloody stupid thing to start a lawsuit over. It's not as though they were sending these nude skins out to unsuspecting game players via some trojan file... you had to actually choose to download the content for a game you've already paid money for.

My guess is they're making an example of these guys so as to curtail any further fan-made mods which might encompass some ideas they could otherwise charge good money for. Just another reason to stick with PC gaming tbh.

stevenmu

ambro25 wrote:

Ya think wrong, unfortunately - you can't protect a Ford (or anyother car) with copyright, that's why Ford couldn't sue you if you painted your Mondeo girlie pink with frog-green dots.

And here's me trying to have an educated debate with posters in the Game Forum but, by the look of things and their vocabulary, what's the point? :rolleyes:

Actually I think cars is a very good example. Ford do have copywrite (well patents to be technically correct) on Mondeos. Imagine what would happen if VW made an exact copy of a modeo and tried selling it. Yet Ford are perfectly happy to let people not only paint there cars, they also let people take apart the mechanics to figure out how they work (reverse-engineer the car) and add after market modifications. They also let people sell these mods on to others, they're basically happy to let people use the car as they see fit.

Similarly with creating skins for Tecmo games, people are just customising the games they paid for to suit themselves. They're also alowing others to take use these customisations which in no way damages Tecmo's IP or results in loss to them.

ambro25 wrote:

But I'll concede that a lot of people don't understand, or find it hard to come to terms with the fact that, law and fairness are totally unrelated matters.

It is both illegal and IMHO morally right. Unfortunatly many people seem to have forgottten that the law is supposed to be about fairness. Fairness is the whole reason for having law in the first place.

ambro25

petes wrote:

Defamation of a computer game character. Really :rolleyes:

No. It is important to understand that copyright issues can be:

economic in nature: e.g. right to obtain commercial benefit, which is the argument advanced by most posters disagreeing by Tecmo, but they do so without proof)

or moral (from the developer's point of view): e.g. the rights to
_claim authorship
_require the author's name be indicated by others using the work
_to retain control over how a work is used
_to oppose the defamation of work (is what we're really talking about here).

Goodshape wrote:

Whatever about the strict legalities of modding someone elses 'intellectual property', it's a bloody stupid thing to start a lawsuit over.

But "strict legalities of modding someone elses 'intellectual property'" is precisely what this is all about. Whether you agree with it or not is irrelevant. Really. And I'm not saying that to p1ss you off.

Goodshape wrote:

My guess is they're making an example of these guys so as to curtail any further fan-made mods which might encompass some ideas they could otherwise charge good money for.

Possibly, possibly not -you don't know that, and neither do I nor anybody here. So how can you condemn a supposed course of action? See my comment above about 'no proof'.

stevenmu wrote:

Actually I think cars is a very good example. Ford do have copywrite (well patents to be technically correct) on Mondeos.

No, you cannot protect cars (or any other object, unless it's a statue or a building) by copyright, trust me on that. But copyright is what you use to protect games.

stevenmu wrote:

Similarly with creating skins for Tecmo games, people are just customising the games they paid for to suit themselves.

For their own private use - fair enough. In the States, it's called fair use.

stevenmu wrote:

They're also allowing others to take use these customisations which in no way damages Tecmo's IP or results in loss to them.

Nope, that's where it all goes wrong. $$$ damages has nothing to do with it: if the modders hadn't publicized it, Tecmo would never even have batted an eyelid.

Blub2k4

going with the car mod idea, a few years back Rolls Royce sued someone for putting the grille and silver Lady on a VW bug.
They won.

ambro25

I think that was trademark infringement, though, not copyright. You got source?

Dont be at yourself

In fairness, if knowledge that mods like these could be easily obtained for TECMO games were to become common, then they'd do huge damage to the brand (outside the lonely pervy nerd community). No parent is going to let their kid play a game that can be turned into a playboy photo-shoot in mere minutes.

They're perfectly right to protect their product.

I wonder, would there be as much an issue with their actions if it was a mod turning the likes of Mario or Jak & Daxter into pornos? Because it's exactly the same.

Blub2k4

ambro25 wrote:

I think that was trademark infringement, though, not copyright. You got source?

I remember seeing the car parked outside my school way back.

<edit> it was pre-internet but I remember reading about it in the papers and I was quite interested as I had seen the car a few weeks before the story.
Google has nothing at a cursory glance.

monument

ambro25 wrote:

or moral

Remind me who said "The morality of it is irrelevant", will you, thanks.

And while you're at it, stop calling people muppets, and then saying you cant have a "educated debate" in the game forum.

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

I wonder, would there be as much an issue with their actions if it was a mod turning the likes of Mario or Jak & Daxter into pornos? Because it's exactly the same.

No, not really there is a difference between Jak & Daxter and the border line porn that is games like Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball - any judge in his or her right mind would see this.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Mine or yours?

That's constructive... muppet

Yours. Its where you talk from. At least try knowing a little about what you're talking about before you let your half-baked ideas vomit forth from your brain and onto the keyboard. Defamation ffs!! Jesus, at the very least get a dictionary.

Also, in terms of copyright infringement, its seems to me to be "fair dealing".

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

In fairness, if knowledge that mods like these could be easily obtained for TECMO games were to become common, then they'd do huge damage to the brand (outside the lonely pervy nerd community). No parent is going to let their kid play a game that can be turned into a playboy photo-shoot in mere minutes.

That's like saying that making a minuture paper mache cock, attaching it to Barbies "front bottom" and displaying it for the world to see is copyright infirngement etc. Sheesh. It would be different if you were to pass these mods off as TEMCO products. For that matter it might also be different if these guys were trying to sell their modifications as a product.

Guys, there's nothing wrong with what these guys are doing, not under Irish/EU law nor I suspect U.S. Law (unless its expressly forbidden under the EULA).Temco are just being bullies.

ambro25

monument wrote:

Remind me who said "The morality of it is irrelevant", will you, thanks.

The morality of the lawsuit is irrelevant. The lawsuit is based upon the morality of the modders' use of the copyrighted work. I thought my posts to be sufficiently clear. Evidently not.

monument wrote:

And while you're at it, stop calling people muppets, and then saying you cant have a "educated debate" in the game forum.

If I can't have an educated debate (because posts are limited to: 'Arse', 'this is ***e', etc. when I post my disagreement with the first thread), I'm obviously dealing with muppets - sounds logical enough, no? (although since posting that/trolling therewith, we seem to be getting there )

monument wrote:

No, not really there is a difference between Jak & Daxter and the border line porn that is games like Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball - any judge in his or her right mind would see this.

The judge applies the Law. Not what is right or wrong (in your mind or anybody else's).

Dont be at yourself

While titillation is undoubtedly a selling point of DOAXBV, it's unfair to class it as border line porn. It's important to realise that it is a volleyball game, a genre that doesn't really lend itself to games featuring anything other than scantily-clad women.

It's also important to realise that Tecmo placed much emphasis on parts of the game not strictly relating to girls jumping up and down in bikinis, and that the game could have been a lot cruder if Tecmo had wished.

But regardless, the argument isn't whether the game was asking for a nude patch, it's about whether third-parties can make modifications to a company's products, damaging the reputation of the brand and undoubtedly sales in the process.

po0k

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

In fairness, if knowledge that mods like these could be easily obtained for TECMO games were to become common, then they'd do huge damage to the brand (outside the lonely pervy nerd community). No parent is going to let their kid play a game that can be turned into a playboy photo-shoot in mere minutes.

And without such modifications (which require a degree of technical knowledge to implement) these parents would buy a game with "bouncing breast physics" as a selling point?

The DoA series has been a soft-core porn game since it started, it's Lula or Leisure Suit Larry packaged as a beat 'em up.

Also, you're forgetting the "Fair use" laws in many countries.
When you buy a product (like a car) you can tinker with it as much as you like for your own educational or entertainment purposes.
If I modded my Shredder2000FX blender and then posted a website with instructions on how to perform this mod for others to learn from, I'd be within my rights.

IP law and the DMCA are again being stretched and this is another example of what a bad piece of legislation the DMCA is for consumers.

monument

ambro25 wrote:

The morality of the lawsuit is irrelevant. The lawsuit is based upon the morality of the modders' use of the copyrighted work. I thought my posts to be sufficiently clear. Evidently not.

I know what you were trying to say, but in a case taking on moral grounds morality is not irrelevant. In any case US law respects freedom of speech more the IP claim on moral grounds where the game is on thin moral ice to start with.

ambro25 wrote:

If I can't have an educated debate (because posts are limited to: 'Arse', 'this is ***e', etc. when I post my disagreement with the first thread), I'm obviously dealing with muppets - sounds logical enough, no? (although since posting that/trolling therewith, we seem to be getting there )

They posted such about their comments, you posted 'muppet' about them... see the charter.

ambro25 wrote:

The judge applies the Law. Not what is right or wrong (in your mind or anybody else's).

Judges actually apply their perception of the law – ie what they think is wrong or right to the law.

Not every case is the same whether it is a killing or an IP case. The law is not black and white.

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

Yours. Its where you talk from. At least try knowing a little about what you're talking about before you let your half-baked ideas vomit forth from your brain and onto the keyboard. Defamation ffs!! Jesus, at the very least get a dictionary.

I'll rephrase: 'Subject to certain exceptions and qualifications, the author of a work has the right to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to the work which would prejudice his or her reputation. This right is known as the integrity right.'

Maximilian wrote:

Also, in terms of copyright infringement, its seems to me to be "fair dealing".

It's only fair so long as the copyright owner does not object to it (copyright is not a right to do something, it's a right to stop others doing something). Insofar as the integrity right is concerned, that's a pretty elastic notion, but one which Tecmo is entitle to try to stretch as the authors and owners of the copyright.

Maximilian wrote:

Guys, there's nothing wrong with what these guys are doing, not under Irish/EU law nor I suspect U.S. Law (unless its expressly forbidden under the EULA).

In your qualified opinion? See above.

Dont be at yourself

And without such modifications (which require a degree of technical knowledge to implement) these parents would buy a game with "bouncing breast physics" as a selling point?

Soft-porn games tend to go under the Dail Mail Ban-This-Sick-Filth radar though, and so parents are oblivious to their 13 year old son buying them. It's mods like this that end up getting splashed across their pages, and I wouldn't count on them reporting that it requires a degree of technical knowledge to implement. Hence, worked-up, ill-informed parents. Hence, a decline in sales.

It's probably that last part Tecmo have issue with. This kind of publicity is going to damage the brand and affect sales - there is no getting away from that fact, and no defence against it, in my mind. As such, Tecmo are perfectly right to do what they did.

On your other point: there's a slight difference between having a website detailing how you modded your blender and a website that actually distibutes the mod. And that's before the consideration of making money from the website enters the equation.

ambro25

monument wrote:

I know what you were trying to say, but in a case taking on moral grounds morality is not irrelevant. In any case US law respects freedom of speech more the IP claim on moral grounds where the game is on thin moral ice to start with.

I don't follow that comment.

Taken in isolation, "but in a case taking on moral grounds morality is not irrelevant". That would agree with what I'm saying here: morality is relevant in a case where the issue is 'I object to the amoral use of my work made by these modders/hackers'.

The issue of moral grounds however, is not in relation to the nudity patch or such like, but in relation to the moral right that the developer owns to have his work (the game) preserved from what he deems wrongful/detrimental use

monument wrote:

They posted such about their comments, you posted 'muppet' about them... see the charter.

Did they now? 'cause having a look at -say (I'm not picking)- Maximilian's post, I'd swear that 'Arse' was thrown at me rather than at Maximilian's comments. Anyhow, if I have been breaking the Charter, I am quite sure that NekkidBibleMan here would tap on my shoulder.

monument wrote:

Judges actually apply their perception of the law – ie what they think is wrong or right to the law. Not every case is the same whether it is a killing or an IP case. The law is not black and white.

Cases (and the application of the law in relation to them) turn on facts, that's not in doubt. But it looks rather clear cut here.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

(etc) In your qualified opinion? (etc)

Actually it is my "qualified" opinion, as a solicitor, which I am.

This might be of interest, its just one section. Like I said, what these guys are doing is not illegal.

Copyright & Related Rights Act, 2000

82.—(1) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a computer program for a lawful user of a copy of the computer program to make a permanent or temporary copy of the whole or a part of the program by any means and in any form or to translate, adapt or arrange or in any other way alter the computer program where such actions are necessary for the use of the program by the lawful user in accordance with its intended purpose, including error correction.

(2) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a computer program for a lawful user of a copy of the computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, where he or she does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he or she is authorised to do.

(I wouldn't get hung-up on the use if the word "necessary")

po0k

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

Soft-porn games tend to go under the Dail Mail Ban-This-Sick-Filth radar though, and so parents are oblivious to their 13 year old son buying them. It's mods like this that end up getting splashed across their pages, and I wouldn't count on them reporting that it requires a degree of technical knowledge to implement. Hence, worked-up, ill-informed parents. Hence, a decline in sales.

It's probably that last part Tecmo have issue with. This kind of publicity is going to damage the brand and affect sales - there is no getting away from that fact, and no defence against it, in my mind. As such, Tecmo are perfectly right to do what they did.

On your other point: there's a slight difference between having a website detailing how you modded your blender and a website that actually distibutes the mod. And that's before the consideration of making money from the website enters the equation.

There was tabloid hysteria about the fabled nude-cheat in the Tomb Raider series too. It didn't hurt sales as much as the declining quality of the gameplay did for the later instalments.

I also believe that the game is rated for Mature Audience (17 and up), so why Tecmo should be worried about the game damaging sales to a demographic who shouldn't be playing the game in the first place raises a question about their own moral integrity.

Maximilian

This is very high-brow debate for the games forum, innit?

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

Actually it is my "qualified" opinion, as a solicitor, which I am.

Then I am doubly...nay...quadruply surprised at your position. You're not a junior, by any chance, are you?

Maximilian wrote:

This might be of interest, its just one section

Let's go

Maximilian wrote:

Copyright & Related Rights Act, 2000

BTW, is this the IE Act or elsewhere?

Maximilian wrote:

82.—(1) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a computer program for a lawful user of a copy of the computer program to make a permanent or temporary copy of the whole or a part of the program by any means and in any form or to translate, adapt or arrange or in any other way alter the computer program where such actions are necessary for the use of the program by the lawful user in accordance with its intended purpos, including error correction.

Next thing, you're going to argue:

1) that it's necessary for the DoA:BV avatars to be naked
2) that the intended purpose of the game dictates a nude patch
3) that bikinis are a manifest programming error, there should never have been any in the first place?

Maximilian wrote:

(2) It is not an infringement of the copyright in a computer program for a lawful user of a copy of the computer program to observe, study or test the functioning of the program in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, where he or she does so while performing any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program which he or she is authorised to do.

Explain to me where the "modders developing a nude patch and posting it for public availability and use" fits in with the above. Particularly, where:

1) "observe, study or test the functioning of the program" matches "in order to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program" in the context of -say- DoA:BV

2) "any of the acts of loading, displaying, running, transmitting or storing the program" includes decompiling

Maximilian wrote:

(I wouldn't get hung-up on the use if the word "necessary")

As a qualified solicitor, I'd expect you to get hung-up on every word of the Article. Which practice did you say?

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

This is very high-brow debate for the games forum, innit?

Yeah, but WTF cares? I'm enjoying myself and if anything, it shows some gamers do have a brain (though most posters herein would of course disagree in my humbly particular case ). This is what I meant by a debate, earlier on - e.g. formulate an argument, string together sentences of 3+ words, you know...

po0k

I'm enjoying myself

Tis pleasurable to engage the oul noodle once in a while.
I didn't expect this thread to get this much attention though.

ambro25

SyxPak wrote:

There was tabloid hysteria about the fabled nude-cheat in the Tomb Raider series too. It didn't hurt sales as much as the declining quality of the gameplay did for the later instalments.

But note the difference: the cheat (if there was one) was programmed by the developer, as an Easter Egg / in prevision of a Marketing coup / etc.

So in a similar situation, the TR developer could never, ever have invoked the grounds which Tecmo have in this case, since there was an element of intention.

Moreover, it was a bit more difficult to Internet-connect (or even PC-interface) Saturns or PS1 in those days than it is an xbox.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Then I am doubly...nay...quadruply surprised at your position. You're not a junior, by any chance, are you?

No, 5 years qualified, good-looking, in my own practice with a partner and about 6'4". Wanna wrestle? As for you; you suggesting that modding a game in a way the developers disliked is Defamation, which is laughable. No, doubt you would bring a latex dildo to a knife fight.

BTW, is this the IE Act or elsewhere?

It is the Irish Act implementing an EU Directive. Look it up.

Next thing, you're going to argue:

1) that it's necessary for the DoA:BV avatars to be naked
2) that the intended purpose of the game dictates a nude patch
3) that bikinis are a manifest programming error, there should never have been any in the first place?

"Necessary" is a subjective word. It depends on your objective.There's a whole body of law on this subject. That is but one Section of one piece of legislation. Quoted by way of example. There is no Modding of Computer Games (Nude Patches) Act, 2005. Unless, there is something expressly forbidding the creatiion of the mod in the EULA (no, nothing like hula hoops, I'm afraid. Not a crisp at all, in fact) then this practice is legal. You may have noticed a number of other mods in existance. Note the lack of legal proceedings relating thereto.

As a qualified solicitor, I'd expect you to get hung-up on every word of the Article. Which practice did you say?

If you had an iota of understanding on the subject you would know that words are open to interpretation by the Courts, although sometime are construed strictly. The thrust of copyright law, is to prevent people from using other people's IP to make money for themselves. That's it in a nutshell. This is not the case here.

As for which practice, I'll not divulge that lest you and your schoolfriends start mailing me pokemon, dipped in cat sh!t or whatever it is you crazy kids get up to at night.

stevenmu

Maximilian wrote:

This is very high-brow debate for the games forum, innit?

I wonder if the people making long considered posts are more inclined towards strategy games and the posters saying things like "That's s**t" etc are FPS "twitch" gamers ?

ambro25 wrote:

No, you cannot protect cars (or any other object, unless it's a statue or a building) by copyright, trust me on that. But copyright is what you use to protect games.

I did mention that they have patents instead, legally I suppose they're quite different, but to me from a practical point of view they're very similar.

ambro25 wrote:

Nope, that's where it all goes wrong. $$$ damages has nothing to do with it: if the modders hadn't publicized it, Tecmo would never even have batted an eyelid.

AFAIK all the court can do is make an award based on the monetary damage suffered by Tecmo as a result of their actions. I'd predict that ultimatly Tecmo will suffer more in damaged reputation than they ever did as a result of these patches (which probably had a positive net effect on sales if anything). I vaguely remember a case (altough it may have been in England,where the law would obviously be different ) where a company couldn't prove it had suffered any damage as a result of copywrite infringement. The case was kicked out, and they had to pay both sides costs.

po0k

stevenmu wrote:

I wonder if the people making long considered posts are more inclined towards strategy games and the posters saying things like "That's s**t" etc are FPS "twitch" gamers ?

Fans of The Sims series of mass-produced excrement.

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

No, 5 years qualified, good-looking, in my own practice with a partner and about 6'4". Wanna wrestle?

I don't wrestle, that's for fairies. I box, that's for gents.

Maximilian wrote:

As for you; you suggesting that modding a game in a way the developers disliked is Defamation, which is laughable.

No, I suggested that modding the game in the way they have is defamatory. There is the not-so-inconsiderable matter of context.

Maximilian wrote:

It is the Irish Act implementing an EU Directive. Look it up.

Not feeling like it. It was just to check, and I'll take your word for it.

Maximilian wrote:

You may have noticed a number of other mods in existance. Note the lack of legal proceedings relating thereto.

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

Maximilian wrote:

If you had an iota of understanding on the subject you would know that words are open to interpretation by the Courts, although sometime are construed strictly.

The very reason of my comment in respect of getting hung-up on words: because their meaning swing both ways, so be careful which you use where and when.

Maximilian wrote:

The thrust of copyright law, is to prevent people from using other people's IP

yes, yes, aaaaand....

Maximilian wrote:

to make money for themselves

... no, gone all wrong again - overstepped yourself.

Maximilian wrote:

As for which practice, I'll not divulge that lest you and your schoolfriends start mailing me pokemon, dipped in cat sh!t or whatever it is you crazy kids get up to at night.

:rolleyes: (but made me laugh all the same).

ambro25

stevenmu wrote:

I wonder if the people making long considered posts are more inclined towards strategy games and the posters saying things like "That's s**t" etc are FPS "twitch" gamers ?

I'll play anything - so long as it's good

stevenmu wrote:

I did mention that they have patents instead, legally I suppose they're quite different, but to me from a practical point of view they're very similar.

No, they're absolutely not. Only thing in common is that they both can be refrred to as IP.

stevenmu wrote:

AFAIK all the court can do is make an award based on (...)

Not necessarily. Court only makes an award if an award is sought. If all Tecmo wanted was for the patches to be taken off and they did win, that's all they'd get (and in all probability, unless they can prove income from the site for the hackers, that's all they will get indeed).

po0k

ambro25 wrote:

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

What if you were shooting the shít out of naked glamour models instead of evil space mutants.....as Pipo the Clown?
There are loads of custom skins of an adult/pornographic nature for Counterstrike, Half-life, Doom etc., yet no cases have been brought against the mod-creators.

If this case goes through on the grounds with which they're bringing it, it will set a worrying precendent which will ultimately hurt the games industry.

po0k

To elaborate on why I first thought this was b0ll0x:
Tecmo are trying to sue these guys for creating skins for the game models which don't feature any clothes.
The games in question use exaggerated and highly sexist representations of women as their main (some would say only) selling point. The original skins on the models leave very little to the imagination.
From an objective point of view, I think it would be hard to find a judge who woulc agree that simply removing the "clothes" of the models damages the "integrity" of the game, as Tecmo are pretty much in for a penny, in for a pound. They created games in which the player's avatars' (ie the girls') costumes gradually increase the amount of flesh exposed for viewing as part of the reward structure in the game.
How they could claim that gamers taking the extra step towards the ultimate conclusion of this pattern is in conflict with the games' premises is simply hypocritical of them.

The games' main feature is scantily-clad women jumping around with their over-sized tits flopping about the place, purely to arouse and titilate the player. On that point their argument falls on it's high-polycount, curved-surfaced arse.

ambro25

SyxPak wrote:

What if you were shooting the shít out of naked glamour models instead of evil space mutants.....as Pipo the Clown?

What is the point of an FPS? Shooting avatars (irrespective of form/appearance).

What is the point of DoA:BV? Play voleyball to win garments for dressing up purposefully attractive avatars. The point of the game is to play Virtual Barbie, not "Barbie & Ken at the Doctor's" -type scenario.

This is the kind of details upon which a case turns, as alluded to earlier.

SyxPak wrote:

If this case goes through on the grounds with which they're bringing it, it will set a worrying precendent which will ultimately hurt the games industry.

True about a worrying precedent. Not so sure about the hurting part, though. Merely set a precedent in terms of respect which developers can rightfully expect from users/players for their creations: "mod at your heart's content, just don't take the p*ss". I'm sure though that big corporate houses like EA will be very quick to grab & abuse the business angle.

Maximilian

stevenmu wrote:

I
I did mention that they have patents instead, legally I suppose they're quite different, but to me from a practical point of view they're very similar..

Probably not so much patent infringement and more Trade Mark infringement - that's what killed various attempts at making Star Wars mods. Nobody has a trade mark on the nude body, as far as I know

AFAIK all the court can do is make an award based on the monetary damage suffered by Tecmo as a result of their actions. I'd predict that ultimatly Tecmo will suffer more in damaged reputation than they ever did as a result of these patches (which probably had a positive net effect on sales if anything). I vaguely remember a case (altough it may have been in England,where the law would obviously be different ) where a company couldn't prove it had suffered any damage as a result of copywrite infringement. The case was kicked out, and they had to pay both sides costs.

Not necessarily, it can grant injunctions and other forms of relief. What is happening here simply, is that Temco don't like this mod for whatever reason and have decided to get rid of it by calling in their lawyers and threatening to sue. The modders have to back down because they simply don't have the funds to even try and fight it. Its a freedom of speech issue really, so hopefully someone will champion their cause. If someone wants to mod a game so that all the characters have 3 pairs of breats and a cock for a nose, then why the hell not.

po0k

ambro25 wrote:

What is the point of an FPS? Shooting avatars (irrespective of form/appearance).

What is the point of DoA:BV? Play voleyball to win garments for dressing up purposefully attractive avatars. The point of the game is to play Virtual Barbie, not "Barbie & Ken at the Doctor's" -type scenario.

The garments become progressively skimpier and skimpier.
It's the lack of material which forms each successive garment and the amount of the avatar's "flesh" that gets revealed which is the reward for progressing in the game.
To compare it to dressing up Barbie is not an accurate portrayal of what the concept designers and marketing slime were waffling about over the boardroom table.
It's digital tit(ilation) for adolescent males for the most part.

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

I don't wrestle, that's for fairies. I box, that's for gents.

If you're calling me a poof, that's borderline libel, that is

ambro25 wrote:

No, I suggested that modding the game in the way they have is defamatory. There is the not-so-inconsiderable matter of context.

Forgive me. let me say instead that suggesting that modding the game in the way they have is defamatory, is laughable

ambro25 wrote:

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

There is an imaginary prize for anyone who understands what the hell he's on about here.

ambro25 wrote:

The very reason of my comment in respect of getting hung-up on words: because their meaning swing both ways, so be careful which you use where and when.

Now you're getting hung up on my words. I was simply providing a specific example of how altering copyrighted material is legal. I'm only trying to educate you.

ambro25 wrote:

yes, yes, aaaaand....... no, gone all wrong again - overstepped yourself.

Can the "yeah, well you smell" argument be far off, I wonder? I assume you are trying to say that Copyright is not about the almighty dollar at the end of the day. This might interest you, young man.

From the article "The Purpose of Copyright" by Lydia Pallas Loren, Associate Professor of Law, Northwestern School of Law of Lewis & Clark College:

When the printing press was introduced into England in 1476, the need for protection of printed works was inevitable. The probable genesis of copyright law was the crown's grant of a letters patent, the printing patent, giving one entity a monopoly on the printing of certain works. Of course, a fee for that monopoly was paid to the crown, thus making the letters patent a source of revenue for the crown.

If the crown could grant these patents, the guild of booksellers, called the Stationers' Company, found that they could agree among themselves to allow a monopoly on works. The members of the Stationers' Company were almost all of the printers in England; if they agreed to respect one another's claims to particular works it was a de facto monopoly. Thus, the idea of a "copyright" started out as a member of the guild registering the title of the manuscript or "copy" with the guild. Registering a copy with the guild gave that printer the exclusive right in the copy. Thus copyright as first used was a noun - the exclusive right in the copy, whereas today many think of copyright more as a verb - the exclusive right to copy.

Incidentally, I am not breaching the author's copyright by posting the extract.

po0k

Just a side-note, are you two lads going to bill Boards.ie / Tom Murphy for your hours on this thread?

ambro25

Maximilian wrote:

ambro25 wrote:

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

There is an imaginary prize for anyone who understands what the hell he's on about here.

ambro25 wrote:

Maximilian wrote:

You may have noticed a number of other mods in existance. Note the lack of legal proceedings relating thereto.

Because if your game is shooting the sh1t out of one another, whether you're doing it as a Space Marine or Pipo the Clown makes not one bit of difference. Bit different in this case, IMHO.

Are you getting a bit purposefully dense, here?

Maximilian

SyxPak wrote:

Just a side-note, are you two lads going to bill Boards.ie / Tom Murphy for your hours on this thread?

I'll be emailing a Fee Note later (hey, its a Friday)

Maximilian

ambro25 wrote:

Are you getting a bit purposefully dense, here?

lol - I'm sure you were probably making a point there somewhere. Let's just assume you were.