Doesn't sound like they have any specific distribution plans yet or none are detailed on their site at least.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's unofficial, it'll never be on Steam. Their example of Black Mesa being similar is either sheer stupidity or a blatant lie.
This is in no way similar to Black Mesa and will be shut down by Disney.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Since the game is still under intellectual property by Disney we are allowed to make the game, but we are not allowed to sell it. So the entire game will be 100% FREE!"
Comment has been collapsed.
Since the game is still under intellectual property by Disney we are allowed to make the game
These guys need to stop smoking crack or w/e they are on.
That statement makes no sense
Comment has been collapsed.
you can ask any company to use their intelectual property, they usually dont reply or just say no
sometimes they get lucky by saying they are going to give it away for free
Comment has been collapsed.
It definitely helps that they are not saying they're going to try to monetize it and are not accepting any donations. The latter is likely a calculated and well advised move signaling to Disney that they are literally attempting to make nothing from this in any way.
Edit - misread the donations bit...apparently they'll take donations...just not quite yet. That's doesn't help my hopes of this surviving.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm also the reincarnation of Jesus.
My point? You can say whatever they want and they're blatantly lying.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, would strongly doubt it will ever see Steam as that would likely be a BIG issue for Disney, but I'll hope against hope that Disney lets it happen. The biggest reason I could see for them to shut it down is if they were planning on rereleasing a similar product for sale (in which case, this would definitely eat into their sales). Disney has made it pretty clear that old EU (Legends) content is not what they're going to focus on, so it seems unlikely that they'd want to spend time on doing an overhauled remake (unless they thought there would be a significant payback on that sort of time/money investment...which...as good as KOTOR is and as big a fanbase as it has is possible).
tl;dr - cross your fingers and let's see how it plays out.
Comment has been collapsed.
That would be amazing! I hope they will finish this. I enjoyed that game so much.
Comment has been collapsed.
Is this legal?
Absolutley!Can you make a Star Wars game? Remakes of games have been around since the 80's and some have become very sucessful. Games like Black Mesa did it with Half Life and Renegade X rebuilt Command and Conquer in the Unreal Engine 3.
I highly doubt Disney lawyers are gonna agree with this.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not specifically sure of the details, but I know that the fact that they are not charging for it certainly helps. Seems like it might fall under the category of mod for legal purposes since it says you have to have a copy of the original installed. That might be how they can do it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Several mods have been deleted from the internet because of copyright, AKA when a company just wants to fuck everyone's day. WB, Bethesda, Valve, Disney, Paramount and some others have already removed mods because of copyright, this could be a case
Comment has been collapsed.
And we all know Disney is all about fucking everyone's day, so there's certainly a fair chance they stop this thing dead in its tracks. I'll keep hoping they don't until I hear otherwise.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not charging may occasionally help convince the holders of the licence to turn a blind eye. But that does not make it "legal".
And in plenty of cases even when its not for profit these kinds of projects get shut down quickly.
Considering the IP? I'll have to agree with rodrolliv here, Disney Lawyers are unlikely to agree on this especially after Disney has gone through great lengths to disconnect virtually ALL video game content from the Star Wars universe and kick it into the trashbin ("extended universe") as far as they are concerned.
Comment has been collapsed.
And all of the content is considered "extended universe".
Comment has been collapsed.
It has nothing to do with copyright law - it has everything to do with the fact that Disney has officially distanced itself from any and all content that is not movie-related.
As such it is highly unlikely that they will look favorable on people doing something like this.
And as such will be very much inclined towards Cease and Desist as opposed to giving their blessing to a project such as this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Under license though. SWTOR is definitely non-canon, but it is licensed IP.
Disney is still willing to make money off of non-canon/EU/Legends properties (see all the rereleased comics, rebranded books with "Legends" ribbons on them, and so on), but they've very clearly signaled that they are not interested in investing in new non-canon Star Wars IP.
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed. I'm not saying it's legal because it's free. I'm saying that if they were saying they were going to charge for it that it would 100% be guaranteed to be insta-shutdown. Saying "FREE" in big bold letters (and specifically saying they are not accepting donations either) is simply the way they have to do it to stand any chance of being allowed to do this.
Edit - misread the donations bit...apparently they'll take donations...just not quite yet. That's doesn't help my hopes of this surviving.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yea... Sounds like a lot of modding projects that have been shot down in the past.
Being very loud in saying how what they're doing isn't illegal because they're not charging money and it should fall under this or that loophole.
And then they go and muddy the waters by taking donations or other 'grey area' aspects.
Comment has been collapsed.
I guess as long as they are giving it like a free mod (that requires one to purchase the actual game and give money to Disney) it could work.
Comment has been collapsed.
Just because it's ignored doesn't make it legal. It just makes it not worth paying lawyers to shut them down. Not that anyone who plays it needs to worry, just the people making it..
Comment has been collapsed.
Tribute or Parody is basically always legal- think bands playing cover songs of the songs of other bands.
When you get into actual sales of the tribute material, that's when it becomes murky- in the case of music, that's when you'd have to pay a licensing fee for use of the song for retail purposes.
In this context, it's being treated exactly like a game mod, and when's the last time you considered a game mod an illegal use of a game? :P
tl;dr, so long as there's no sale elements involved, it'd be really difficult, if not impossible, to establish legal grounds for a suit. So, countering your first statement. :)
Then again, in America, might--makes-right, so the end result is similar- if any large company tries to pursue an individual, there's usually nothing they can do about it, regardless of if they're in the legal right or not.
Comment has been collapsed.
"tl;dr, so long as there's no sale elements involved, it'd be really difficult, if not impossible, to establish legal grounds for a suit. So, countering your first statement. :)"
Yeah, hundreds of other remakes like this (like Starcraft-in-Warcraft3 remake, or that Middle-Earth mod in Skyrim) disagree. It's painfully easy to suit someone for this, it's called IP law that mod-authors are breaking. And all depends on goodwill of owner of IP. Since Star Wars are Disney's, I think "cease and desist" letter is more probable than blessing.
Comment has been collapsed.
You should probably read my comment two down, before replying to the above one.
But no, that's certainly not how I understand it. Again, laws regarding copyright/IP usage relate primarily to commercial law, It's why people can buy as many bundles as a site lets them, and distribute it to anyone they want [consumer right of use], but when a company like G2A does it, it's illegal.
When it comes to free distribution of any modifications you've made to your own purchase, that's still within your own right, since it's your right to distribute anything you yourself have made, for non-commercial purposes.
Though, it is NOT your right to distribute exact materials of the product- in the case of games, this'd be files you copied from the game rather than making from scratch,
IP violation is commercial, tribute/parody is otherwise the actual law.
However, in practice, a company can do whatever it wants and get away with it.
So certainly, that gives a different impression.
Comment has been collapsed.
Are you trying to make a point or just talking circles on purpose? "They can't do this, this or this because of this....but technically they can do whatever so if everything I said turns out to be wrong, at least I covered my ass!"
This won't see the light of day no matter how much your imaginary PhD says so.
Comment has been collapsed.
That mods have been taken down doesn't actually mean it's illegal. It just means that the IP owner forced it down. Could be that if it went to court it would turn up legal, but since a mod team will never go up against an IP holder in court, we're unlikely to find out. Then again, perhaps an IP lawyer could shed more light on this.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then again, perhaps an IP lawyer could shed more light on this.
Done.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/45xp3i/no_the_kotor_fanproject_is_not_legal_sorry_folks/
Comment has been collapsed.
You can pretty much be assured they'll receive a cease and desist if Disney does not approve.
Tribute and parody are considered legal when they are transformative in their content.
This is not transformative, its literally taking the original content and porting it with some polish.
What they are doing is not 'legal' by any stretch of the definition. Sales or no sales is irrelevant to that particular matter.
Disney holds the rights, they do not. If Disney does not want then dealing with this content then they will be required to drop the project.
People seem to have a hard time understanding that just because some mod-projects have been allowed to continue as long as no money changes hands. That that doesn't make it "legal". And countless mods HAVE been shut down so its hardly a matter of precedence either.
It all comes down to Disney's stance on the product IP. And considering they've gone through great lengths to distance themselves from virtually all pre-existing video game content? That seems pretty obvious.
What these guys are doing is not "legal", their best bet would've been to approach Disney beforehand with a request and cross their fingers.
My money is on waiting till we are informed of the Cease and Desist since I highly doubt Disney is going to turn a blind eye and give their blessing.
And there are countless cases that cover that occasion where mods were shut down.
As sure as one and one is two and two and one is three - this is legally not a tribute.
This is just a plain old copy / remake.
Comment has been collapsed.
Again, that's false.
The primary rule is that you have the right to do with your property what you want.
That's why modding your own car is legal [though it'll breach any warranty in effect].
And, you can resell that car just fine, legally.
There's nothing in law preventing modding [things you own for personal use, wherein it does not compromise the security or stability of any other products or services of the manufacturer].
(Otherwise any time your kid ripped the head off a Tickle Me Elmo, you'd be in trouble :P)
You may, however, create restrictions on distribution, but as far as I'm aware, you need to send out a cease and desist, and the modding party needs to decline that request, before you can actually sue for it.
And no- if the only content they release is made solely by them, but then searches for existing game files and incorporates them, that would be legal, since that's purely self-designed-content.
As I noted, the issue is when they incorporate any files of the original game into their distribution.
It's basically identical to how plagiarism works. It's not plagiarism if you write a fan-fic, or rewrite a section of a story, unless your rewrite/fan-fic contains any direct excerpts from the original
Your point on 'transformatve in content' is certainly accurate, but that doesn't apply to engine remakes, since they're content-free.
Now, I'm not saying the mod-designer in this case isn't talking out of their ass, and that they meet the rather strict requirements for it not to be considered a violation of intellectual property.
All I've been saying is that it's not inherently against any written law to mod something, or even distribute that mod. There are, however, laws on use of intellectual property or distribution that can be referenced, especially if Terms of Service are breached (though ToS are not inherently legally supportable- you can't just stick anything in there and have it be legally defensible).
My main points weren't to say this mod was going to survive, but to point out some of the statements to that fact- for or against- were a bit dubious, such as the implication that ToS were inherently legally justifiable.
I will however argue with you that it's a copy/remake, if it requires the base game to play.
Again, nuance is important.
tl;dr: IP law is not an all-powerful legal justification, but also neither is right-of-ownership, and ToS is far less powerful than either.
However, if a company is strong enough, the nuances involved don't matter.
That's all :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets start off by pointing out something that is a bit of a legal black hole.
Which is whether or not you actually "OWN" software.
In most cases the documentation states that you own a licence to it, which allows you to use that software.
In many cases it states that you're not allowed to redistribute it and so on - which is the primary hook they use in argueing that software can not or should not be resold.
With physical copies we've gotten to the point where physical retailers (gamestop and the like) have pushed that point in their favor since they benefit from being able to buy used games and then sell them again for a fair chunk.
With digital copies we have yet to reach that point and the legal threshold is maintained - you do not "own" the game, you merely hold a limited right to use it. Which is why we still can't sell our digitally purchased copies on Steam and other media.
-
Which leads to the creation of mods. There are countless of instances where mod authors have been creating 100% original content. Which would be considered transformative onto the product they are modding. And they still got a Cease and Desist.
Thus far I've not seen any instance where a modder or modding team went up against a Cease and Desist on the basis that their content was 100% transformative and original and therefor what they were doing was legal.
As you say, the holders of the licence will need to take those steps before they CAN sue - but who is going to take that risk.
On top of that we have this whole "Is this legal?" spiel, with plenty of mod authors and their like going "Well ofcourse its legal!"
Following that up with a list of nonsense that does not relate to any legality whatsoever. Which isn't to say that the possibility of it being legal does not exist - just that the reasons given are complete bull.
And THAT leads to what I said above. Which is that it is almost guaranteed that Disney would send out a Cease and Desist for this project. Rather than giving them their blessing or turning a blind eye.
Legal or not - the mere fact that no money changes hands does not make it so.
-
Given the nature of these kinds of projects they tend to do a lot of meddling with licenced content.
And while you're correct in saying that they aren't distributing it with the "need the original game" caveat, I highly doubt that THAT is going to prove much of a hurdle to give Disney lawyers pause.
As it stands looking at previous modding situations it is unlikely that they'll push their luck if Disney decides to send out that Cease and Desist.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, your Steam assertion is a bit off, as far as I've understood the legalities in play- the reason we can't resell the games is because while we do own the products, we access them through the Steam distribution service, which they can cancel or set the terms to as they please, due to the extended freedoms on services versus products. Likewise, we agree to the use of the service on purchase of a Steam-DRM protected product, which revokes our right to the usual protections on a product.
That's just Steam using the system to their advantage, I wouldn't say it negates any of the other elements in place.
Other than that, I agree entirely with the elements you pointed out-
Thank you for taking the time to write such a respectfully structured post. :)
And yeah, given the owner and the massive appeal of the IP, it's not looking favorable, no matter what justifications are in play.
Still, it's a cool idea. And just 'cause the mod is likely to get nixed doesn't NECESSARILY mean it's off the table- from Serious Sam to Black Mesa, to Black Isle Enhanced Editions, we've gotten a fair bit of remakes recently.
I mean, it's pure optimism, and irrelevant to the current mod attempt, but y'know- as much as rehashing the same IP over and over is generally just a mindless cash grab, sometimes a quality presentation combined with nostalgia or excellent source material, can make for a worthwhile additional playthrough, or even repurchase.
A pity more IP owners don't take that into consideration.. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
This is not the case here since Apeiron is a remake which is made using a new game engine. I don't see any mention about KOTOR base game being required to play it and I bet Disney lawyers will send them a cease & desist letter in a very short time. Don't forget that making a free mod for a game can be illegal if the EULA prohibits it, and no one in their right mind will take this to court considering the hefty legal fees involved in this type of case.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, commercial use of property is handled by law, EULA/ToS covers right-to-use, which allows them to cancel your consumer access to a product.
So they could serve you with a cessation order, and if you refused that, THAT is when it'd become illegal.
That's been done before- you'll see mods get taken down partway in because of it.
Of course, being the internet, what parts were already up continue to be distributed, so it ends up just being a way for companies to prohibit quality support of their products. :/
For reference, TSR [owners of D&D before Wizards of the Coast] used to be infamous for sending cessation notices to any fan site for the game, regardless of content (earning them the nickname T$R- They Sue Regularly).
So, as far as legality is concerned, you can consider this similar to running a fan site for a game. :P
tl;dr, your perspective is right, I just wanted to clarify it's not inherently illegal, unless you persist past a cessation notice.
That's a minor nuance with no effect on the end result, though. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
If the game is copyrighted in America, and I can assure you it is, it's considered derived work and would violate copyright laws here. Distribution of the work, free or otherwise, would just escalate damages and include possible jail time.
From the US Copyright Office:
Right to Prepare Derivative Works:
Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, an adaptation of that work. The owner of a copyright is generally the author or someone who has obtained the exclusive rights from the author. In any case where a copyrighted work is used without the permission of the copyright owner, copyright protection will not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully. The unauthorized adaption of a work may constitute copyright infringement.
Comment has been collapsed.
http://mttlr.org/2012/11/06/gaming-mods-and-copyright/
It's not that simple, especially for things that are distributed but do not modify access to the game, inhibit sales of the game, or require payment to use. Especially, as I noted above, if all the content provided is entirely original, without any reproduction of game assets, and it's an add-on rather than stand-alone.
Law isn't black and white, it's about a lot of different 'rights' conflicting with one another,
Currently, courts favor companies in their interpretation, and companies can force the matter as they please, but it is, as the article I noted, a grey area, due to conflicting laws on the matter.
If you build your mod correctly, you would, according to the laws in place, not be taking part in any legal violations.
Assuming a modder capable of doing such an extensive effort for a free mod, however, is a bit optimistic.
Also, there's entirely no violation whatsoever for remaking a product you already own, if there's no distribution in place [see my above posts]. Right-to-ownership/Fair Use is pretty encompassing for personal use.
Put another way, you can highlight all you want in a book you own, but as soon as you start printing duplicates of that highlighted version- whether you give them away free or sell them- it becomes an issue.
On the flip side, if you manually rewrite your own substantially different version of the novel and distribute it freely, you'd be in the legal clear. If you sold them, that'd be a licensing infringement.
If you made unique book covers- which don't affect content- and released or sold them separately for the users to add themselves, that'd be legally valid.
There are approaches that favor the modders, and approaches that favor the companies.
We're in large part too used to companies having all the power, to often recognize that protections exist in both directions.
Typical mods, however, certainly fall on the less-favorable side of things.
My argument wasn't for or against any particular element, just for clarification of the overall framework involved, especially where people begin believing Terms of Service can create its own legal validations, which it cannot.
Comment has been collapsed.
Somebody above posted a link to Reddit that contains the verdict from an actual attorney. It mirrors exactly what every attorney I've spoken to over the years has stated as well. Your viewpoint is in the majority, but it is simply wrong and dangerously expensive to pass off as true. Fair Use does not apply to what they are doing.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's not only an unreliable citation, it says basically nothing, and it's completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed [by me]. o.O
My point has been split among several conversations, so it'd certainly be easy to misconstrue, but I'm not entirely sure what that reddit reference is supposed to accomplish.
I never said the Kotor fan project was necessarily legal, and I most certainly did not intend to give any indication that I believed it was sustainable. And, certainly, their statement in regards to legality was pretty nonsensical.
My topic was trying to state that things equating ToS with law weren't accurate, and statements being made that modding was always illegal were not only false, but nonsensical.
None of what I've said was ever intended to directly address Kotor outside of hypotheticals.
Comment has been collapsed.
Okay, but the post you replied to of mine was in regards to KOTOR and its copyright protection and what these people are doing. I'm focusing on the topic of this thread, not Fair Use arguments for what you can do at home.
The Reddit post is a response by a well known game industry attorney.
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/45xp3i/no_the_kotor_fanproject_is_not_legal_sorry_folks
You may not know who he is, but others do. You are welcome to contact any copyright attorney and ask for a free consultation to ask their opinion. You might find some variance, but I doubt it.
Edit: Your argument is:
You buy a book and because you're vision impaired, you scan it into the computer, increase the font size, and then reprint it for personal use. That is technically legal in most regions.
What they are doing is: Buy book, scan book, increase font size, print book, then share with all friends that already own the book. That is illegal.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, back-up copies of products you own is considered legal, so long as it is for personal use.
Given that all the individual in question is doing is providing the service of making those backup copies while also offering an easier-to-read filter, in the example you offered, that would still be legal. :P
(Rather, if it wasn't, scanners and storage devices and print shops would all be in trouble.)
Again, not that I'm arguing in any way that kotor is valid, but all these arguments being made aren't actually the ones that should be being made. :P
I'm still not sure what you're trying to clarify, above, since it still doesn't actually say anything, nor relate to my topic.
You're not making any actual arguments, nor providing any actual information to peruse or consider. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I misinterpreted your message to Meirmeir then. It came off as you stating that up until a Cease & Desist notice, what they're doing would be legal. A C&D is a formality but not a requirement.
The example I gave about the books is how the law works. You could provide a free service, in theory, to modify the books of others, but they would have to provide their copies. You couldn't use your copy to save time, nor could you retain their copy. UMG Recordings, Inc. v. MP3.com, Inc. Print shops actually have rules against copyrighted materials, because they're liable as well. When Amazon integrated text-to-speech for all books in their Kindle product line, the industry threatened them, because they weren't licensed to provide that "service." You could read your kids a bedtime story from your Kindle, but your Kindle legally can't (without a proper license). :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I was under the impression that if it was not detailed in the Terms of Service, or directly covered by law, fair use made it so that you did have to establish a C&D to inform the individual of wrong-doing. That may be mistaken.
The reproduction of books in the manner you suggested would certainly be legal if ownership was established. First, your friend wouldn't have to give you the physical copy to transfer ownership to you, they could transfer it and state to be borrowing it at the time. That you choose to use one of your owned copies rather than the other for reproduction is your whim, and then you transfer back ownership along with the accompanying backup copy.
Alternatively, you make a reproduction under fair use, for book club-esque criticism and review- then, the friend could avoid having to destroy it due to prior ownership.
Remember, at it's heart, law is about loopholes. :P
And what do you mean, 'nor could you retain their copy'? That doesn't even make sense :P
And as far as text-to-speech, that would only be infringement if it acted as an audiobook, with direct integration. If it's just a text-to-speech implemented into kindles that happens to work with their books.
Now, the actual legal justification the Author's Guild used was that it infringed by on sales by acting as a "substantially similar" replacement for audiobooks, and existing solely for the purpose of adding audio to books. As such, its established function wasn't text-to-speech, but unauthorized audiobook creation, which they would have required licenses for.
That's an issue due to audiobooks, not books specifically.
Meanwhile, if you used a text-to-audio on a PC, since the primary function of a PC is not to read books, there'd be no justification for it, assuming the software was not somehow limited to books.
Here's some reading:
https://www.publicknowledge.org/files/CopiesRightsCopyrightsPKThinks2013.pdf
Recent perspectives on copyright are just that, recent. Copyright laws have become incredibly constrictive and favoring to companies on the whole. But, despite that, most perceived usages of copyright are actually just companies exerting influence, rather than actual infringements.
It's a constant back and forth, that unfortunately is slowly favoring more business-benefiting practices- a constant in modern America.
Nevertheless, what the courts or public perception currently accept as valid isn't necessary the 'correct' interpretation of the laws in place, and while precedence is a potent thing in law, there's actually still not too much that is definitive in clearing up that grey area.
You can't just outright assume all rights belong to the companies- that's just not true (yet).
And certainly, it shouldn't be accepted as something that ought become true.
So you saying 'that's how the law works' is just unfortunate- you could say 'that's how the law is currently being interpreted' (though it isn't).
Also, I've never seen a print shop refuse to print copyrighted works, nor am I aware of any prohibition on you using a service to make a backup for you. o.O
Finally, you actually ARE allowed to make copies of music for personal use, using certain mediums (AudioHomeRecording Act, I believe).
Do keep in mind that any case or legislation relating to a specific form of copyright [eg, digital games, digital music, chairs, books, etc) also doesn't necessarily translate directly to another product type. Digital products especially seem to follow their own, messy, dubious laws.
For example, it's legal to make copies of a physical disc, since it's assumed you're transferring the data, then transferring the same data to a new physical medium.
Straight transference, the only thing changed is the physical component, which you have full right to. If that physical component is your hard drive, so be it.
Flip side, if you download the game, then you have a digital copy, under which your license isn't for 'one physical copy', but for 'one installation'. That's more or less the sum of it, anyway.
On the other hand, the DMCA also restricts duplication of physical copies if you have to bypass security locks to make them.
Basically, along more recent years, digital law has evolved more and more to favor their copyright.
This doesn't necessarily extend to any other product- such as books.
Basically, as the paper I linked above states, so long as one copy -> one copy (excluding backups), physical copyright is pretty straightforward. So if you wanted to buy a bunch of board games and modify them, that'd be allowed, same as with buying and modifying cars and then reselling them.
Were that same premise to extend to digital games, then any mod that requires a base game would be legal- since you're doing the same modification work per game.
However, digital laws are stricter, so you have to avoid making any direct adaptation of the work. Thus, you could only use fully original material for your mod.
Then again, precedence also makes even that an iffy prospect.
And, say, if you did a unity-engine-updater program- no copyrighted materials infringed, no specific game referenced- you might still fall under unity's copyright.
Nevertheless, that's all still technically grey area, and ideally, it'd favor consumers more in the future.
There's certainly no straightforward 'that's against the law' component to it, but between courts backing down and noone being willing to fight the increasing copyright restrictions, it's slowly becoming fact.
That said- still hasn't extended backward to non-digital things, such as books. =O
Backups, as well as modifications or reproductions in which the original is destroyed, are all still permissible.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are authorized to make a backup copy of things you own, but that backup possession must follow the original when it's being transferred, to be legal. You cannot legally lend something to somebody while still retaining the backup. If you convert a CD to MP3, you cannot then lend the CD to a friend while having the MP3s in your possession. Whether you get caught or charged with infringement is despite the point.
My point about retaining a copy as a service means, if you convert a book for me to large type, you must destroy all content in your possession when returning the books to me. So if fifty people have the same book to be converted waiting in line, you have to do the whole process fifty times, not just once. Otherwise it's considered illegal duplication (copyright infringement). Again, the service would have to be free (less claim damages), and you still are taking a risk, especially if the publisher makes a large print edition already.
You can buy Monopoly games and laminate the cash, then resell them as waterproof legally. You can't however remake the pieces into metal to last longer for resell without license, because that would run the risk of a derivative claim, but dipping the pieces into gold wouldn't. Same with furniture, you can do as you please with furniture, but the style of the furniture is copyrighted, so you can't legally reproduce furniture in the same style without the risk of infringement claim, but you can add two legs to the chair for more stability for overweight people.
I can't think of any printing place in recent memory that did not have a giant no exceptions notice on the wall regarding copyrighted material. There are plenty of online complaints of Office Depot refusing to print fliers for people with "professional-looking" images.
Fedex/Kinkos:
"You also warrant and confirm that You own the copyright or have permission to copy any documents or Materials You submit online for printing or processing, and agree to defend, indemnify and hold FedEx Office, its parent and its parent's subsidiary companies and their respective officers, directors, agents and employees, harmless from any suit, demand, or claim arising out of any breach of this warranty and agree to pay any judgment or reasonable settlement offer resulting from any such suit, demand or claim, and to pay any attorney's fees incurred by FedEx Office in defending against such suit, demand or claim."
I like you and really don't want this discussion to be a point of contention between us. The reason there is a lot of confusion regarding the subject is because there is not a lot of case law to illustrate how the laws should be interpreted by the courts and what rights under different clauses allow exceptions/overriding.
Comment has been collapsed.
It says you have to have a copy of the original in their twitch page: http://www.twitch.tv/thedigitalcowboy
Comment has been collapsed.
There was a full 3d remake of chrono trigger in the works like 10 years ago that got shutdown by SE really quick.
Comment has been collapsed.
It would, at the very least, be a conversion mod. Similar to Morroblivion, where (AFAIK) you could play Morrowind in Oblivion. Unless I'm mistaken and it was only the Morrowind world but... Point stands.
Comment has been collapsed.
This. They might be able to remake everything legally, they can't use the license without permission though.
Comment has been collapsed.
thats cool, i feel like KOTOR2 has better writing :v, still props to the guys
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh yeah, I'm sure the top question they get is, "You going to do 2 too?!"
Comment has been collapsed.
:\ Sounds way too good to be real. Still, let's hope
Comment has been collapsed.
To be honest, I don't see this actually happening despite it being cool.
The legal problems will likely shut the project down.
Comment has been collapsed.
Free to owners of the game? YES! I'm in then! I own both of them!
THAT'S going to be interesting.
Comment has been collapsed.
Looks nothing like Kotor (or even Star wars in general) though
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't have knowledge about all this law / legal side of it, but even if Disney would be 100% fine with it (or wouldn't be able to stop this project) I don't know if I'd want to play in a game altered like this.
New engine, models, textures - that's cool. But adding extra characters, missions and so on will transform it into different game. And I don't know if I want to alter my canon story from KOTOR :D Besides original game has got this magic for me. Will they leave old dialogues system, where whole sentences are visible, or will they make it more modern, mass effect like? And so on.
Though it's nice to see that there are people, who still love this game and want to work on it :D
Comment has been collapsed.
"canon story from KOTOR". Everything but the movies and The Clone Wars CGI show is non-canon, that means that KOTOR is not part of the canon anymore :c
Comment has been collapsed.
I was talking about original story from KOTOR, not about place of KOTOR in Star Wars plotline / old movies and so on. But yeah, I may have used word canon wrongly here xD
Comment has been collapsed.
self-contained canon versus core universe canon :)
versus cannon canon =O
Comment has been collapsed.
My new canon is - you're in romantic relationship with this basketball you're holding in your avatar D:
I know - It's impossible canon. But I will defend it to the end of my days :D
Comment has been collapsed.
What can I say? It fills that empty space inside me.
:reaches into their skeletal body: :pulls out basketball:
Eh? Eh? Ehhhhhh? :D
Comment has been collapsed.
That's only if Disney doesn't consider it canon, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh yeah I missed that... that they are adding extra stuff. I agree with you 100% that that is something to be wary about. But still an interesting project which will be nice to see if it finishes! :)
Comment has been collapsed.
A good chunk of BioWare games have insanely good community-created content. After a few years, the only reason for me to replay BGII over and over was the sea of quality mod content, ranging from quests and new party members to gameplay tweaks.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't mind the additions really. If this every sees the light of day, you could still go back and play the original still if you wanted the "pure" KOTOR playthrough instead. I never mind fan fiction as it is really just kind of food for thought for really dedicated fans. It doesn't destroy the original. It just makes you wonder about the "what ifs" someone else has thought up.
Comment has been collapsed.
Holy crap the greatest game is getting a reboot?? Totally getting it <3
Comment has been collapsed.
kotor was a pretty big game... sorry but i just dont believe it'll ever get done. Seems like a group of people made some progress, got excited, and announced the project thinking they could easily keep their momentum up... If i had to pull a percentage out of my ass as to whether this will ever get completed/released, id say 10%... between the scope of the project, the fact its 'free', the fact they're making something for a HEAVILY licenced/protected franchise owned by one of the worlds biggest companies... nope. really dont see it ever happening.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, there's a good chance they will get stopped and it certainly doesn't look like they're very far into dev. This is Disney we are talking about after all. We know they love their legal team. I'll keep my fingers crossed and see how it plays out. Always hope for the best, but won't be expecting it anytime soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, let's be honest, KOTOR 1 & 2 could do with a bit of refinement and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not talking about only graphics albeit newer graphics certainly wouldn't be bad if it was made to still fit the game(I'm trying to be as nice as I can, people are going to complain that updated graphics = bad but I disagree in the same sense as quality of pictures and photographs). The gameplay could definitely use an update, be it more action-y RPG or just updated D&D/RNG/Dice-roll mechanics. Hell, they should REALLY make a new game at this point. The way KOTOR 1 & 2 were made and are considered generally great games shows that a KOTOR 3, with enough work and love put into it, would be very welcomed.
Comment has been collapsed.
MORE action RPG-y? It already used the then-new SW RPG rules which were based on a simplified D20 ruleset… which itself was made as a dumb-as-bricks version of D&D specially made for action-oriented campaigns. The only way to be more action-y than that is to fully consolify it and just make a ME2: KotOR edition.
Comment has been collapsed.
What, is that so bad? A game like KOTOR and the arsenal of its weapons would benefit from an Action-RPG gameplay similar to Dungeon Siege 3, ME 1-3, and other games of its kin. Maybe even something like God of War but more towards a classic knight vs. knight sword-fight theme. I doubt you can say an action-RPG KOTOR with more engaging and active gameplay would be bad. A lot of games have objectively disengaging combat ( for example melee weapons in pretty much every game have nearly no depth and consists of button-mashing).
It's mostly up to opinions but objectively Action-RPG IS more engaging than clicking on an enemy and auto-attacking it while occasionally pressing buttons to use some abilities. KOTOR didn't even really have skill-based abilities. There were only really the Jedi abilities and the blaster burst-fire ability. I think there was a melee weapon one but that's just it - Just one.
Comment has been collapsed.
Two: single-bladed and double-bladed swords. They were featured prominently on Kashyyyk. Not that lightsabers were any different.
And it was one of the last games where combat was stat-based, so you issued orders and let the rules decide the outcome. Not shot yourself or mashed a button like someone with a seizure against enemies that had no rules to back them up, so they were either cannon fodder or had stats no player ever could get to balance out their shortcomings. This killed a lot of ME2 combat too and turned half of the game a cover-to-cover shootfest. Which is featured enough on FPS games to satisfy everyone, but stat-using cRPGs were next to non-existant between 2009 and 2014 because this action-y approach infested the entire industry.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the difference between realistic and suspension of disbelief. I find enjoyment in both stat-based outcomes and real-time/realistic outcomes. Simply put, I don't see an issue with having guns be, well, guns. You wouldn't be out on a field and have a shoot out with guns, so that's where stat-battles come into play OR you can have a very boring and ridiculous wild-west shoot out that will possibly end with everyone dead. Honestly, you talk about it as if it's some kind of plague and there's nothing good about it. I think it's the opposite because, as I said, it can be very engaging. Especially when you make the gameplay depend on moving around constantly (e.g. if you try to play ME3 / ME2 with the shotgun + bionic charge, that's pretty fun albeit very hard to pull off) and being aware of your surroundings. It would be the same thing in a game where lightsaber face-to-face battles would be very common. That being said, the gameplay of KOTOR 1 & 2 definitely aren't the high-points for me.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because it was a plague, started by BioWare, that essentially made stat-based RPGs outside the indie JRPG scene vanish almost entirely from 2009… until Obsidian, inXile, and to a degree Larian brought it back in 2014. When you take a genre and start simplifying it until nothing remains of the core aspects, it is not improvement. Just look at FPS games. Put a top-rated CoD hero into Quake Live and watch them not getting a single frag because they never learnt how to actually play a game, they just rely on aim assist and two-shot kills instead of reflexes, arena knowledge, and movement. (Although, truth to be told, this was started by CS way before CoD…)
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, differing opinions. I can enjoy both. I also get a feeling you're confusing CoD-mechanics (which is basically just stick-twirling / mouse-slapping) with Action-RPG that is actually engaging. Just watch Dungeon Siege 3 gameplay. That's the best, most recent example I can think of right now. You had to actually move around in that rather than just button-mash.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand you. But ARPGs have their own place, like how cRPGs do. And somehow when they start to mix, it is always that the ARPG wins not the other way around. The only single exception I know about was the Divinity series, which switched from TPS-ARPG to TBcRPG with Original Sin.
Comment has been collapsed.
I understand that. The issue is that cRPGs cannot do the "action" part, especially since the majority of them are turn-based / fake-real-time (dragon age) as well as the combat being based around stats. It's like if Oblivion or Skyrim had miss % on every attack even if the attack would connect with the person ( which is pretty damn like, like a 90% at least. How can you miss a big target such as a body right in front of you?), which is apparently what Morrowind does but, y'know, whatever.
Comment has been collapsed.
Heh. Actually, you can. You can miss the broad side of a barn, it just has a low chance to happen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, at that point it's grasping for straws. Unless you can defy physics or you are swinging in the opposite direction it is impossible to miss unless there's interference e.g. a parry / block. There was a big youtube argument about this on a video about how Oblivion was better than Skyrim (The comment was about Morrowind, inevitably, and wasn't even the game being discussed) and the inevitability of this is that Morrowind, AFAIK, uses % hit chance, meaning that if you swing and physically touch the enemy, you can still miss. That's more or less what I'm talking about.
Comment has been collapsed.
Hopefully no C&D.
Although I feel like big Mod projects like this never come out...
Comment has been collapsed.
I have never wanted a game more in my life than right now.
I may be exaggerating, but I can't tell because I am so excited.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Lots of legal misunderstandings here.
1) this is copyright infringement
- it's using disney's IP (star wars)
- it's using bioware's IP (KOTOR's story)
- it is not a parody (they're not making fun of star wars)
- a "tribute", as someone mentioned, is not a safe harbor, but actually copyright infringement if done without the IP holder's permission. In music, it's generally accepted, but it's not technically legal
2) making it free doesn't affect legality
- it is true that a lot of IP holders turn a blind eye when it comes to things like fan-fiction and mods
- that doesn't mean it's legal
- a mod doesn't have special legal status
- requiring the user to own the original game doesn't make it any more legal, but it does increase the chance of IP holders turning a blind eye
- if you make something that violates IP, then it's illegal for you to give away, even if you don't charge for it
3) Disney may choose to shut this down to protect their IP
- if a copyright holder doesn't actively protect their copyright, they can lose it
Any other questions about the law?
Comment has been collapsed.
I feel that the restriction on modifying a copyrighted work should have a clause that allows software owners (or licencees) to commission a 3rd party to fix bugs, update software to work with new hardware or OS's, to port software, or in the case of abandoned early access games to complete the game; the 3rd party should have any rights necessary to do the work.
On DRM, at the very least owners/licencees should be able to commission a 3rd party to remove it, DRM usually breaks things, causes incompatibilities, or does malicious activities in the background like rootkits, keyloggers, and bot nets.
In blunt honesty I think any software that incorporates DRM should lose any and all copyright or other legal protection and become public domain along with any related IP rights; remember the purpose of copyright isn't really to protect content creators, that's just a side effect of the larger goal of building a huge pool of public domain content over the long term, DRM damages content such that content creators fail to hold up their end of the social contract at the least, and poison the pool with malicious software at the worst.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM came into being because of software piracy. The cost of developing a AAA game is such that, if the developer/publisher did not think they could recuperate the costs, it simply would not get made. It's possible to debate how effective DRM is, in the same way that it's possible to debate pricing strategies, but, the truth is, if a game doesn't do well enough, then there won't be a sequel. If the creators don't do well enough, then they will have a significantly lower budget, if any, to create another. Crowdfunding has helped, but it's not the perfect solution, and has its own problems.
One thing you also need to keep in mind is that, to my knowledge, IP holders have never objected to bug-fix mods. It probably would make sense for there to be an exception for completing abandoned games, restoring content, etc., but this is a relatively new phenomenon, and the law changes slowly. Try petitioning your local legislator (congressman if you're in the U.S.A.) and see if they'll look into it. Until then, it is what it is.
On a side-note, I wonder if anyone has ever tried a class-action over the more malicious DRMs out there. It's not my field of expertise, but it could be interesting.
Comment has been collapsed.
DRM came into being because of software piracy
While this is true, according to Fredrik Wester, CEO of Paradox, DRM is not something that's really used to stop piracy, but to appease shareholders. Basically, everyone who actually makes games knows how ineffective DRM actually is, and according to him, DRM cost so much that you're paying more than what little you earn from potentially lost sales. But less tech-savy people, like most investors who don't really understand gaming, want to hear how they are going to protect their games against evil piracy, and when they ask you what you'll do, you can say something like "We're using this system we bought from this company".
Comment has been collapsed.
Basically, everyone who actually makes games knows how ineffective DRM actually is
You really should tell this to all idiots who ever decided to use Tagés or StarForce in their products… coughEAandUbiSoftcough
Comment has been collapsed.
They answer to their shareholders, who want to know how they'll protect their games, so what we need to do is convince the shareholders of EA & Ubisoft that the DRM they are using is not having the intended effect.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here's how to do it:
1) Buy 1 share of the company's stock
2) Go to the annual shareholder meeting (every shareholder is entitled to attend)
3) Ask a well-phrased question (every shareholder is entitled to ask a question)
4) ???
5) Profit
The problem you're going to bump into, is that EA and Ubisoft can deflect the DRM question into a promotion for Origin/UPlay, citing that they're eyeing digital distribution and are leveraging their existing games to boost those platforms.
Basically, reducing sales by a small amount in the short term with the intent to develop a new revenue stream (and I bet they'll show Valve's numbers as a comparable target) is sound business strategy, and the shareholders will side with management.
Or, you could ask why consumers and the industry media are disparaging Origin/Uplay as much as they are. Ubisoft's response will be that they're improving it, and in the meantime their games are available on other platforms so it's not cutting into sales. EA sill say that Origin is the second most popular platform, and are working towards being number one. Either way, not likely to elicit much benefit. So long as Origin/Uplay show year over year growth, there's a good chance shareholders will keep supporting, or at least not getting opposing, management
Comment has been collapsed.
In regards to Uplay & Origin, I'm really not opposed to the companies trying to push them. In their current state, they are far from perfect, but if you consider the health of the market, giving valve more competition is a good thing. Currently Valve is in a situation where they really don't need to worry, as they hold near market dominance, and that's why they can do things like let server issues go unresolved for years. I don't think Valve is an evil company or that they want to do us harm, but I think they've grown complacent.
It's going to be hard to convince a group of people who really don't have any interest in games or gaming-related technology to drop the current system of DRM. They basically want some form of reassurance that changing the system would generate more profit. And it's in the interest of whoever is representing the company to push their DRM because that will reassure the shareholders that their investment is safe. If you bring up the issues of DRM today, they'll probably mention that the DRM of tomorrow is going to be so much safer.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm just looking at it from a business perspective. If there's empirical research that shows that DRM isn't profitable, institutional shareholders will push the companies to drop DRM pretty quickly.
The other thing to keep in mind is that the ignorant shareholder argument isn't actually a good one. Just about all EA shares are held by institutional investors, and while a chunk of that is due to index stocks auto-buying (Vanguard), with large mutual fund companies like fidelity (8% owner) taking on a more activist role, and when the top ten shareholders include Black Rock and Lone Pine, as well as a few other large hedge funds, I guarantee the involvement of dedicated analysts who specialize in the video game industry, and they'll know every little nuance of both the overall industry and the specific company. Those analysts probably have a better understanding than the EA itself of, for example, how many more copies of games would have sold if they were available on services other than Origin, the lost sales due to piracy, and the effect of DRM on consumer buying habits.
(quick guess: sales lost due to origin are relatively small, at least for their biggest blockbusters, sales lost to piracy somewhat higher, and any decrease in sales due to the presence of DRM is insignificant in the high-priced markets)
Comment has been collapsed.
From the people I know who work in the industry (currently I know people working for DICE, Overkill & Mojang, though through them I've also met people working for Paradox and Starbreeze (Stockholm is a small city...)), the things coming from the higher ups are often things that don't sound very well researched, they want to do things that either won't be possible to do, or which will in the long run hurt the game and its sales. They seem to think that it's often down to shareholders & people at the top who quite simply don't understand the tech side of the market. So while there might be tech savvy people among the shareholders, who understand the market and how their decisions at the top will impact the game and its long term sales, there's also a lot going on there that quite simply stems from a lack of understanding of the market.
And we really don't have much data in regards to how well a game with DRM will sell as compared to one without DRM. For a long time now, there has been DRM on most bigger budget games. We would need a good sample of big budget games sold without DRM to say anything for sure about how DRM actually impacts sales (The Witcher series is not enough, they are selling well due to their quality and we don't have anything similar that is DRMed to compare to). The people I know in the industry, and some industry veterans like the above mentioned CEO of Paradox, seem to think that DRM is not doing much good
Comment has been collapsed.
the quality of management can vary considerably, a lot of managers aren't actually that smart, and there's a large incentive to follow the herd (if everyone else is doing DRM, I should be doing DRM). I was specifically referring to your earlier comment that said most investors don't really understand gaming. While that may be true for retail investors, institutional investors ' analysts tend to be very aware of a lot more than most people, including management.
But, then again, when there's not a lot of empirical data, they look at the wider market. Personally, I think the trend is going to be to simplify DRM. Steam is a good example, where the DRM is not overly intrusive, especially when coupled with the related service of the content management, and yet does a reasonable job as a deterrent. My understanding of Origin is that it similarly is relatively unobtrusive, and offers other benefits as well. With these services being readily available, I think other DRM is gonna go the way of the dodo as publishers can get the dual benefit of DRM and digital distribution in one package.
Comment has been collapsed.
While that may be true for retail investors, institutional investors ' analysts tend to be very aware of a lot more than most people, including management.
They also tend to play it a bit safe. Not always, but it's often the case when there's so much money involved. DRM is the norm, so they stick with it, because that's how it's always been done. The thing about DRM being there to appease investors is what Fredrik Wester (Paradox) said on the topic, in regards to why they had used DRM in the past.
If we look at the music industry, the thing that cut down on piracy was not adding DRM to the CDs (CDs were getting increasingly DRMed, and several different types of DRM was being used, from relatively uninstrusive DRM to DRM that would install software on your computer that in turn would constantly look at what you were doing and report home, and a lot in between). What cut into piracy was things like Itunes & Spotify, making getting music legally more convenient than getting it the illegal way. The big record labels and their investors were surprisingly slow to move here.
Comment has been collapsed.
completely agree on everything you said here.
Which is why I think Steam/Origin are going to be the DRM of the future.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yay! Another remake project that I can follow for a decade until it eventually becomes obsolete and gets canned.
Has ANY remake project ever actually been finished?
*Edit: Not remasters. I'm talking fan-made remakes in modern engines with cutting edge graphics. I'm not talking about making an old game run on new hardware or big budget developed titles. Sheesh.
Comment has been collapsed.
Grim Fandango Remastered
Duck Tales Remastered
Secret of Monkey Island Enhanced
Comment has been collapsed.
Remasters aren't the same thing at all.
I'm talking full blown remakes with new graphics on a modern engine. Black Mesa, Skywind, Duke Nukem 3D unreal remake, etc.
Comment has been collapsed.
FreeCiv. OpenTTD. OpenXCOM. The Dawn of Tiberium Age.
Comment has been collapsed.
If they will release it, i might feel again like 13 years old boy, who loved play KOTOR. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
That moment when you reach Korriban's Academy knowing certahing things and you are like "WHAT DO YOU JUST SAY TO ME, WORM?!" with unreal engine... Yes, yes I like it :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Unfortunately I read this yesterday :S
https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/comments/45xp3i/no_the_kotor_fanproject_is_not_legal_sorry_folks/
Comment has been collapsed.
HOLYMOTHEROFREVAN
http://www.apeirongame.com/
They're remaking KOTOR with Unreal Engine 4. Site says it will be free, but requires you own the original game/have it installed.
This sounds nothing short of fantastic. I'm definitely putting my email address on their mailing list.
Comment has been collapsed.