Torchlight art assets stolen, used in iOS game Armed Heroes
geek.com
geek.com
As to why some people apparently feel more comfortable saying "stolen" in this case versus people sharing MP3s: There's an obvious qualitative difference between people sharing files, and someone passing work off as their own, especially when profiting from it. From what I can tell, it's the whole plagiarism part that really pisses people off.
But the minute I make money, it somehow bothers you. Why?
Sharing culture is much more complicated than just monetary values.
When the copy is free, there's a non-zero cost associated with making that copy. 20 years ago, it was the cost of a cassette tape. Even now, there is a bandwidth cost associated with giving away a copy.
If you then go out and sell that same MP3 then every sale you make is a sale that _I_ should have been paid for. The people you are selling to are willing to part with money and instead of it coming to me, the original author, it is going to a 3rd party.
If they were just sending out verbatim copies of torchlight without profit then it would be a different issue.
That said, I agree with your point even if you probably don't: using the wrong word in the wrong place is not a good thing. Conflating copyright infringement with theft is bad even if you empathize with the person whose copyright was infringed.
Also, we need to expand the meaning of words by analogy, otherwise we're left with calling things Thing A and Thing B.
[1]: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theft [2]: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theft
Since copyright infringement does not stop the original "owner" from using the property in question, calling it theft seems intellectually dishonest. All the historical judgments are based around this idea--the reason theft is inherently bad and punished by so many societies is that the person stolen from does not have use of his property any more. Extending these to something that does not deprive the original owner of anything is not reasonable.
Besides, the idea of "owning" information involves having exclusive control over its distribution. Given this parallel, somebody just having an unauthorized copy does not own the information as they have no exclusivity or control over it whatsoever. If somebody with such a copy could then enforce that others could not use the information, it would be akin to owning it, but it would also be a very different story!
So your definition of theft would probably have to be amended to "using something without paying the price..." since just having a copy of something confers no ownership. But then this definition suddenly becomes very broad--much more broad than the commonly accepted meaning of theft. For example, trespassing would fall under "theft" as you're using somebody's land without their permission or "paying the price".
Expanding words by analogy is a good thing, granted. However, this assumes that the analogy is reasonably accurate. There are clearly harmful examples of expanding words by poor analogy: the oft-repeated mantra that "evolution is just a theory" only exists because the analogy between the common use of "theory" and the scientific use is fundamentally flawed.
So expanding words' meanings by analogy is good assuming the analogy is not relatively misleading or clearly biased. The analogy between theft and copyright infringement is both, so this use should not be encouraged.
I wonder how long we have until someone makes a car analogy?
While I don't like that Armed Heroes used other's copyrighted work without permission. It's sad that these assets were not released under Creative Commons in the first place. Armed Heroes should've taken the "high road" and released their own assets under CC instead of using other's. IMHO, those who are hypocrite on this subject are simply missing the bigger picture.
Another thing is that you would not have to reinvent the wheel each time. Sure, you expect the important bits of each game to be unique. But do you really care that the wooden crates or doors from one game are reused in another? Being able to take an existing model of something unimportant and tweak it to match your atmosphere would save a lot of pointless work.
Just having access to such a library would not stop a good game development team for making a creative, distinctive game. It would just save them from having to make a whole bunch of boring models of limited utility. They would still make all the core models--characters, exotic settings and so on--for each particular game.
Besides, I think game studios already share assets between similar games in their own lineup. This would just make the sharing global, giving everybody access to more material to start from.
Personally I mostly enjoy games for their story and atmosphere, and the few times I've recognized a reused asset (e.g. a sound effect) it's been really distracting. It's like the Wilhelm Scream in movies... once you know about it, you can never stop noticing it.
A better idea would be to make an open library for procedural generation of assets, so that you can make infinite variations of every item, and tweaking is easy. We already have e.g. SpeedTree, but these things are so valuable they always end up being commercial rather than free.
> the few times I've recognized a reused asset (e.g.
> a sound effect)
We call them "mods".
Now, releasing the assets under CC after 5 years or so I could get behind. Let the culture remix your work after it has had a chance to stand and be judged, appreciated on its own.
Game art falls under copyright, doesn't it? Couldn't the author go after them for infringement?
This situation reminds me of the notice Apple sent to retailers not to sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
So Apple gives the developer a chance to respond (i.e. it will probably take a few days to see any action). If they didn't we would end up with the mess like they have with DMCA notice takedowns on YouTube.
I wrote about it in more detail at http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-availabl...
Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned.
That said, Apple can do whatever they like with their platform, and show little compunction about doing so.
I'm reminded of all of the cyberpunk Gibsonian/Stephensonian worlds where governments have given way to governance by and for corporations. Welcome to the future.
That's exactly why they would make the DMCA complaint.
Without it, Apple is directly liable for copyright infringement. They are making and distributing copies of Torchlight's work without authorization each time someone downloads the app; the fact that some other entity provided it to them does not absolve them of liability for this infringement.
If Apple wants to shed liability for the copyright infringement they are committing they would be required to promptly remove or block access to the alleged infringing content, not simply put the notifier in touch with someone. If they don't remove or disable access, they don't qualify for the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and remain liable.
Even should Apple block access, they do not remove themselves from the equation; you are wrong to say it's now solely in the hands of the two parties as far as the DMCA is concerned. Instead, the alleged infringer now has an opportunity to file a counter-notice disputing the claim of infringement. When Apple receives this counter-notice, to retain their safe harbor protection from liability, they must now promptly restore access to the content.
This serves as protection against excessive damage done by false claims of infringement. Apple and other service providers are not expected to decide the merits of either claim. Simply take down upon notice of infringement, restore upon counter-notice.
Only then is the situation left to the two parties and the courts to resolve.
The DCMA assumes that Apple, acting in good faith, will resolve Runic's issue by either taking down the infringing content, or putting them in touch with the supposedly infringing party. The infringing party, if they believe Runic to be incorrect can then counter-file, to ensure the content is not taken down, and then from there Runic and the infringing party are the ones responsible for dealing with the legalities of the issue not Apple.
I believe I just gave a point-by-point of how that's incompatible with what you said. I'll be more explicit:
You said "through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party". I said that putting you in touch with the party is not sufficient under the DMCA; it's not an either/or situation.
You said "from there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out". I said that Apple's responsibility does not end at the takedown notice, they're also responsible for handling the potential counter-notice and restoring access to the content.
Then you made some silly comment about governance by corporations, when the DMCA requires those corporations not decide the merits of either party's claims; in a dispute, it is required to leave the content available and force the parties to court to resolve the situation. If they don't do so, they retain full liability for the copyright infringement.
You didn't say all the other stuff you just edited into your comment, not that it corrects all the issues with your original statement.
The onus is on the content provider first and foremost. They need to remove the material and then notify the provider of the material. If the provider can show it's theirs it can go back up. If they can't, it needs to stay down. If the DMCA notice is completely wrong, the provider of the material can go after the accuser for monetary damages. If Apple doesn't take down infringing material, the are no longer under safe harbor[1].
You were defending Apple for not taking down the offending material say that they don't have to because the DMCA gives them safe harbor, and that's completely untrue. Apple is complicit in the infringement until they take it down 'expeditiously'.
[0] See 17 USC 512 (c)(3) & (g)(2): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
The only requirement is that the DMCA claiment swear, under penalty of perjury, that they are authorized to make the demand (they are the copyright holder or authorized agent). No other penalty / liability against the notice server is provided for in the statute.
Relevant portion: 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(vi) http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
No other penalty / liability against the notice server is provided for in the statute.
So are you going to ignore section f (Misrepresentations) which makes the entity providing the notice responsible for various penalties?
Unless I'm misremembering, that was not a part of the original statute & was added later. The criticism I gave was fairly common immediately following passage of the DMCA.
IANAL, but those two words "knowingly" and "materially" are extremely huge caveats that should make it very easy to avoid any liability for carefully crafted false takedown notices.
There are many documented cases of large companies using DMCA takedown requests to suppress material that they just don't like, with no valid legal claim on it.
In order to qualify for safe harbor protections, Apple must take down content "expeditiously." So I'm under the impression that they actually waive the DMCA harbor entirely, and decline to process requests. IANAL, and Apple has much better lawyers than I do, so it's possible that "expeditiously" means something other than what I think it means.
What are the chances of someone who bought the rip-off then buying the original creator's game? If anything they're likely to view the legitimate game as the rip-off because it was released later, and say so in App Store reviews.
Novelty has a pretty high value in itself, and that value is being stolen.
He's claiming that they didn't copy the assets but inspired themselves from them. He's claiming that they (just like everyone else) are building upon the shoulders of giants.
That argument is perfectly valid, until the accusing party pulls your files named after their own bosses (carrying the typos along too). At that point, you've pretty much been proven wrong.
It's less valid if it's copying art or sound assets. Unfortunately, this discussion isn't about mechanics(as tbaltree notes in the thread), it's about the specific art assets.
And thus: Angry Birds.
http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/armed-heroes-online-3d-mmorpg...