WitherVoice said:
Severely flawed analogy. If the bank robber designed and crafted the weapon himself, then that design is his property no matter what nefarious deeds he may have committed with it. If Samuel Colt designed and crafted his revolutionary revolving flintlock design, then robbed a bank with that gun, the revolving flintlock pistol and design would be his. The physical pistol would likely be evidence and he'd not be likely to see it again, naturally, but neither would it become property of the bank he robbed.
I know its counted as evidence, but why wouldn't he see it again? It his gun, right? Instead, i become a piece of evidence until the shelves are too crowded and then thrown aways in garbage. That basically the same vibe I got from your (aka: all anti-Rockstar) post: OMG!!1! THEY R THEIF. K1ll R0CK5TAR!! Understand that even if that code is taken, myth can get it back without facing the Feds. Sorry but hacking is a federal crime and that code fall under copyright. They can't complain anyways and it doesn't hurt them because they don't profit from it. That's not the case when myth hack Max Payne 2 because that work was worth the money. Any work done need to be payed beside charity. What Myth did is basicaly that, charity. It give morons the change to have fun on the back of nice working people. Ain't that sad?
WitherVoice said:
Akalistos said:
Now, I find myself again on the opposing team. I know right: "It in the fine print of the submission form." But here, it work that a fan did. I expect that he got his name in the credit and get a prize. Can't he brag being on the team that made (EXAMPLE) Diablo 3. That thing stink of: "Thank for doing our work now buzz off". Maybe it's just the way you say it. How about this: You would be included as a programmer of blizzard in the Upcoming game and win a sweet price instead of submission become the property of Blizzard S*ckers!!! LOLOLOLOL
Ethical it may not be, but Blizzard (or any other company in their place) could not do it any other way. You participate in those competitions knowing, or at least you SHOULD know, that acknowledgement and a prize is what you get, and no more. If Blizzard were to NOT take possession of the work, they could not publish it, because then later they could be sued for part of their profits. It's flawed and it sucks, but it's not really up for change
Again. If they consider that employees work are legally owned by the individual and Blizzard, they could do it. It like, become a honorary member of the staff. Therefore, they are acknowledge and it doesn't take the right to publish it. Why did i say the individual? Because if you have played games like Splinter Cell... those game are nothing more that ctrl C / Ctrl V type of work. It also ensure that the piece of software isn't re-use over and over and over and over....... Also, making it a piece of the staff give right to Blizzard. But that how i see it. If you are from legal school, tell me which book they said it impossible.
WitherVoice said:
Akalistos said:
So by your logic, if i change all the name in the credit of a upcoming game for my own, that work (aka the game) will be mine and i have the right to sell it? Cool! Be on the lookout for STARCRAFT 2 by AKALISTOS ENTERTAINMENT!!!!!
This "misunderstanding" is so glaring that I suspect it's deliberate.
If you just suspect, well maybe i gave you to much credit. It a exageration to make a point, yet it didn't seem to hit his target. No matter, Making a error don't qualify anyone as stupid but as humans.
WitherVoice said:
The original game executable is the property of its creator. The program that modifies it is property of ITS creator. Just because my program opens and mucks about with a file made by someone else, that does not mean that my program is suddenly THEIR program.
Yet you say the same thing in reverse. If the original Executable is made by Rockstar and they use that same code with just a few change in certain parameters, doesn't the rest code is owned by Rockstar? How come changing Zeros and Ones can change the propriety of the whole excutable.
WitherVoice said:
Akalistos said:
Yet, if it wall on(was a) freeware, they are ok.
No. "Freeware" is not an unambiguous legal term. If the license for the code says "take our code and do with it what you will, including selling it for profit", then Rockstar are fine. If the license says "use the product and modify it, but do not sell it" (a common type of license), then they are not. If there is no license, you'd have to litigate, which would cost far more than creating the code yourself (if you're Rockstar)... because leaving out a license means that it's the property of its creator.
But where should it fall, that the question. Piracy is a federal crime and but its less than Piracy & Resell of Stolen goods. If Myth would have sell that hack, and get cought, they wouldn't see the light of the sun until it goes supernova. So, they would most likely separate themself from anyone (a individual, not Rockstar) trying to sell it. If they goes the "Modify and not Sell" route, they may be seen as part of the same group that sold the hack. So my money is on Take it and do what you like, knowing they can't be held responsable for the other twat that sell it. Therefore, it should be ok. Right now, new laws should be inacted about this. Hacks shouldn't be part of intellectual property, even if freeware or not.
