Most recent edit on 2003-10-03 05:53:18 by RichardBerg
Additions:
Back to CollectedWritings
Edited on 2003-10-03 05:26:28 by RichardBerg
Additions:
I'm not sure I understand the second half of that quote. Will people not buy the game now that they know there are new weapons :confused:
Edited on 2003-10-03 05:25:10 by RichardBerg
Additions:
Looking at my previous post, I'm ready to claim that Microsoft : crackers :: Valve : cheaters.
So long as MS is making a good faith effort to ship a stable, secure OS and patch each hole as it's discovered, I can't lay the blame on them for network breaches. Building some cheat prevention into HL2 might make their $50 product more compelling, but ultimately the responsibility lies with users.
It's harder to be vigilant about cheaters than it is to set up a firewall, but on the flip side it's much easier to justify playing private games than it is to unplug the Net. I haven't gamed in ages, but from what I can tell the landscape is still very social: you're not missing much if you only play with friends (local ones over LAN, distant ones on restricted servers). Naturally tournaments and such are exceptions, but they also provide their own security. In all, my gamer buddies don't seem to enjoy cheat-capable games any less than uncracked ones.
Edited on 2003-10-03 05:09:13 by RichardBerg
Additions:
Hobbes, it's a principle I made up :) Ask Microsoft whether their source code is copyrighted and they'll say "yes," but when I reflect on the situation I don't think standard IP doctrine applies. Saxon has a good point, although I don't feel like looking up (1) what state Valve is in (2) what the laws are there. Regardless, the issue regarding the original perpetrators is pretty cut & dry.
Naturally, I too am awaiting Geoff's response :) Certainly we feel more moral attachment to friendly game developers than the arbiters of evil RIAA contracts, but the answer should be more substatial if it's to hold up...
Nor should you be fooled by "music licenses:" if software licenses are said to have virtually no legal precedent, as many like-minded people do, then music licenses have absolutely none. A distribution service that claims you may only stream (not download) their sounds, or a scheme that only gives you X listens, is at the sole mercy of its technology. Breaking it may be an anti-circumvention offense until the evil DMCA is repealed, but it is not copyright infringement. In fact, were I to amend Title 17, even before striking out the DMCA provisions I'd add this disclaimer on so-called digital rights management: any DRM scheme that does not automatically cease when (1) the copyright duration is completed, or (2) the user requests a use that a majority of a U.S. Circuit Court would deem fair, shall not be eligible for copyright protection. Encouraging the encryption of the arts and sciences*** will irrevokably harm our cultural heritage when the keys are inevitably lost by advancing technology and the general march of time.
Deletions:
Nor should you be fooled by "music licenses:" if software licenses are said to have virtually no legal precedent, as many like-minded people do, then music licenses have absolutely none. A distribution service that claims you may only stream (not download) their sounds, or a scheme that only gives you X listens, is at the sole mercy of its technology. Breaking it may be an anti-circumvention offense until the evil DMCA is repealed, but it is not copyright infringement. In fact, were I to amend Title 17, even before striking out the DMCA provisions I'd add this disclaimer on so-called digital rights management: any DRM scheme that does not automatically cease when (1) the copyright duration is completed, or (2) the user requests a use that a majority of a U.S. Circuit Court would deem fair, shall not be eligible for copyright protection. Encouraging the encryption of the arts and sciences* will irrevokably harm our cultural heritage when the keys are inevitably lost by advancing technology and the general march of time.
Oldest known version of this page was edited on 2003-10-03 05:07:58 by RichardBerg []
Page view:
(originally posted
here∞)
As far as I'm concerned, this has nothing to do with intellectual property. Rarely is source code explicitly copyrighted -- of course an implicit one applies as per the Berne Convention, but I have doubts whether it could hold up in court. Why? The answer goes straight back to the Constitution: IP was established to promote the distribution of art and knowledge (for a fee if desired), which would eventually enrich the public domain. Game binaries and the packaging etc. that accompany it clearly fall into this category, but you'll never find the source code registered in the Library of Congress. As such, it's much closer to a trade secret, which courts have repeatedly ruled do not retain IP protection.
What is plain to see is a case of breaking & entering with malicious intent, and most significantly, of fraud. These offenses have been in the criminal statutes for a long, long time, and (unlike, say, DMCA's anti-circumvention) deserve to be. Lock the thieves up.
...but it's unlikely you could implicate an average Joe in a crime for downloading a now-available copy. This would be analogous to reading the Coke recipe, assuming it got published somehow (legitimately or not). Once the cat is out of the bag, U.S. law says "tough luck" -- and I agree.
Since this is turning into a general copyright thread, I officially disclaim responsibility if this turns into an essay...
qkslvrwolf, the entertainment lobby is evil all right, but the first 1790 statute was not 7 but 14 years, renewable to 28. (Even the original British Statute of St. Anne, c. 1710, wasn't much shorter.) I'm all for returning to the original term, of course. Incidentally, some argue for loopholes: for instance, do you think the 1992 AHRA compromise was a good one? I didn't from the beginning -- SCMS stripping being merely an excuse to ratchet up the price of newly demarcated "professional" gear -- but hopefully the subsequent removal of lawsuit indemnity and the fact that not a dime of the "royalties" ever saw an artist's pocket will convince you.
Meanwhile though, the argument you give here isn't exactly compelling. After all, game developers can sell merchandise if they really want. If you consider that impractical, surely you'd agree a speaking tour could be lucrative (I think some have already explored this option). Does that make it more acceptable to download cracks?
Hobbes, lots of people share lossless audio. (Artist-sponsored bootlegs being the most common, though that's neither here nor there.) Would that make it as bad as pirating games? I think many people would still say no, but with no good reason offered yet. What if it turned out that mp3s were lower quality than tapes used to legitimately* time-shift radio? Does that make them ok? I posit that this has little to do with the issue. It will probably be a significant discriminant when more online distribution methods begin to compete, but Title 17 is quite blind to quality.
No solution here really targets the core issue. Bob inadvertantly hits on the sticky part of a digital work's ontology -- the word "steal" has little meaning in this context -- but even the ephemeral nature of code doesn't in itself justify or incriminate an action. In short: does owning a copyright give you the ability to restrict** distribution? I think it does. It's just not clear that Valve can seek copyright protection for something they never intended to distribute in the first place.
What if you believe you have a moral obligation to shove the industry toward a more modern structure? (Radical as it sounds, I find this opinion 100% valid, and implore anyone who doesn't to read the now-famous articles on salon.com about how the underpinnings of borderline-illegal contracts, extortion, and payola shape the life of the average artist.) Don't buy RIAA discs, obviously. But don't redistribute their music, either, says I -- to extoll the benefits of sharing while secretly hoping it leads to the destruction of the old model is intellectually dishonest, and if you truly believe in said P2P virtues (I do), counterproductive. Turn off commercial radio. Point and laugh at the faux lesbians on MTV. Fuck'm.
In other news... Buy from independent labels on Amazon and CDBaby (checking the
list∞ of course). Go to local concerts. Share their music with friends next door and online alike. And by share, I want the original meaning: word of mouth about what you like and why, not just an FTP server named "download this." Have fun.
A closing remark on piracy in general: it's a pity our language doesn't better reflect the difference between a poor student downloading Mathematica for class and a shady character on a NYC street corner hawking Hong Kong-vintage Madonna CDs. One can argue semantics all day long, but ultimately the former person is harming Wolfram not at all (and perhaps working toward becoming a professional -- paying -- user) and the latter is directly diverting funds from Warner Bros.' bottom line. Talking an economic impact of online filesharing in the billions of dollars makes wonderful headlines, but ultimately it's like the corporate equation of "stealing" with infringement. Once you sift through the fluff the real criminals are actually pretty easy to target, and just as with Valve, they're criminal in more ways than the NET Act would have you believe.
More generally, there's a reason copyright and criminal law didn't intersect for the first 288 years of their coexistence. Some would argue that the Internet made it a necessity, but I'd argue there was a much greater compelling interest in the early years. When printing presses were owned by a select few, the balance of power between publisher and artist was at its most skewed. The entire reason copyright was founded was to help correct this imbalance. Saying that it wasn't good enough, in this age where everyone can be a publisher for $5/mo, is quite a slap to those who struggled to provide us with the culture we enjoy today.
*Remembering however that ALL unlicensed copying constitutes infringement. "Fair Use" is an affirmative defense whose 4-way test may be considered when a case is brought to trial, not an exemption from the rest of the Title. Only judicial precedent can accurately determine its scope, but most would agree that time-shifting falls into this category, recalling for example the 1984 Sony Betamax case.
**Point one: note I did not say "prevent." To make an aside that's actually relevant to the original thread, I believe holding back publication of a work violates the implicit contract in Article I section VIII: you get a temporary monopoly in return for sharing arts and science. I brought up the
LoC in my last post because traditionally, registering a copyright involved placing your work there in the public view, just as authoring a patent gets its contents irrevocably published on uspto.gov.
A poignant case I came across just over the weekend involved a recent composition we sang in the Duke Chorale. It was originally a setting of a Robert Frost text, but immediately after it was completed the Frost estate revoked the derivative rights. This particular piece was saved by a poet-friend of the composer's agreeing to write new verses in the exact meter, but the principle set me aghast: what if Schubert had been similarly restricted by Goethe (who was not exactly a fan)? What if Arthur Brook (or hell, Plutarch, had proto-Disney gotten their way with infinite terms) could have put a creative hold on Shakespeare? The artistic world would be infinitely poorer. Luckily, in the scientific community the "open-source" (if you will) paradigm of patents and journal articles is well entrenched, even if there's more profit-mongering than I'd like -- if you doubt this, thank God the math folks never thought to charge every time you use a theorem...
This doctrine in question also (for me) disambiguates some areas people consider grey, e.g. the capture and redistribution of TV shown over public airwaves and never released to DVD. I say it's like trademarks: don't use, you lose. Yet were this principle to be put in force it would clear require the provision for case-by-case review, since on one hand content holders could "release" their offerings priced at a million dollars, and on the other vendors of derivative works might not add enough creative content to justify legal protection prior to the freedom they're promised when the work becomes public domain.
Point two: note I did not say restricting "access." Don't be fooled by any industry rhetoric that makes you believe copyright can (much less was intended to) restrict access. The concept of public libraries far predates dear St. Anne, and is in no way superceded by modern IP. You can borrow CDs as often as you like; you can remember the songs to the best of your ability; you can even write them down; you just can't sell your scribbles, until the copyright expires.
Nor should you be fooled by "music licenses:" if software licenses are said to have virtually no legal precedent, as many like-minded people do, then music licenses have absolutely none. A distribution service that claims you may only stream (not download) their sounds, or a scheme that only gives you X listens, is at the sole mercy of its technology. Breaking it may be an anti-circumvention offense until the evil DMCA is repealed, but it is not copyright infringement. In fact, were I to amend Title 17, even before striking out the DMCA provisions I'd add this disclaimer on so-called digital rights management: any DRM scheme that does not automatically cease when (1) the copyright duration is completed, or (2) the user requests a use that a majority of a U.S. Circuit Court would deem fair, shall not be eligible for copyright protection. Encouraging the encryption of the arts and sciences
* will irrevokably harm our cultural heritage when the keys are inevitably lost by advancing technology and the general march of time.
There, you have the succinct version of my views on copyright, in no particular order. Don't even think about asking for the long one :) ***I actually believe that ALL encryption not involving nuclear submarines is bad, but that'll have to wait for another time.
Ok, so obviously lots of people spoke while I was composing myself, but in general they're correct.
Since starting work in the industry I've had to think a lot about software patents (most of my bosses had a few plaques on their wall). Despite being quite the free-information type, I don't think I'm opposed to them in principle. The problem is the way the USPTO is granting them willy-nilly. It's gotten to the point where you can patent the ability to type "foo", or like the now-famous John Keogh in Australia, the wheel.
Meanwhile, it's comparatively difficult to get a patent annulled when prior art exists, as it should. Thus everyone is trying to patent as many things as possible, as preemptive protection if nothing else. Even when a company can lay true claim to an idea, the way standards are adopted in the computer industry don't lend themselves to cross-licensing, as is commonplace among CPU and RAM manufacturers. What the hell is one supposed to do in the face of Amazon's 1-click patent?
Edit: and q, in some ways you make me apologetic, because having been on the receiving end of countless long threads (which I assume a thread becomes given a giant post) I know it's tought to jump in. Do you try and pick one point to respond to and not get your say in on the others, or pick it apart quote by quote to the detriment of everyone else's debate? Sorry for putting people in that position.
Saxon,
I believe you misread my point. In short: restrict distribution = yes, access = no; elaboration = above.
You are right that I was misleading about the origins of copyright. The quasi-moral laws enacted in Europe do predate St. Anne, but did not hold the influence over English common law that my italics implied. Nonetheless, I think my exegesis of the U.S. Constitution suffices to establish the root of American copyright.
I don't think we disagree on software patents. I think they're far preferable to, say, EULAs (not that they're interchangeable, just making a point). Thing is, I'm even more worried about the expense of a prior-art lawsuit than about the incompetence of the patent office. Allowing robust challenges to patents solves the incompetence issue better than any lawyers the USPTO could hire, but as it stands it's cheaper for anyone without a Microsoftian bankroll to pay a fee to a patent holder than to file a suit. It's this environment that forces companies to patent things left & right in the first place, lest they be stuck with a license fee every time they want to turn on a computer.
Cross-licensing is basically bartering of patents. Micron comes up with a way to increase RAM density and Infineon figures out how to manufacture it smaller; they trade knowledge. This is common in several hardware areas, but RAM is the most complex since there's a standards body (JEDEC) -- everyone who joins automatically agrees to cross-license with the others, basically ensuring that memory sticks are compatible with each other. Meanwhile, agreements between say Intel and AMD have kept the x86 platform compatible merely because they've individually chosen to cross-license a few technologies along the way. Most interesting are things like the Intel-Rambus alliance where Intel agreed to require Rambus RAM in all its high-end motherboards for 3 (?) years in return for access to their tech. Of course, Rambus stole most of said tech from JEDEC, but that's another story...
Back on topic, I think some perspective is in order...
Assuming you're not fellow software developers, let's try to get a grip on how long it would take to parse through a huge, foreign codebase. One that's undoubtedly highly optimized (99% of the time at the expense of readability, FYI); with coding standards entrenched over the many years Valve's dev team has been in place; that arrives without any documentation other than in-line comments (read: no design layout).
How long? Not as long as writing it, but on the same order of magnitude. Longer if you're constantly looking for secret little gems in which the magic of Valve supposedly lies (insert rolleyes), and longer still if you're trying to appraise and reuse the general framework.
Valve knows more than I do, of course, but if the concern that's motivating them to delay HL2 is merely thwarting cheaters, I think they're making a mistake. I'm not a gamer anymore, but there have always been cheaters and there always will be. Reward your legitimate customers by saying "screw them."
Before everyone posts more frowny-faces, here's an even more optimistic viewpoint:
You can't copyright ideas. There would be nothing illegal in reading their source and using their methods, unless those methods were patented.
I think this is a good thing for games. Lots of people have just been exposed to possibly great new ways, or some horribly wrong ways, of coding whatever their software does. This influx should help lots of other game programmers along in development, and hopefully make things better. Valve may lose money, but who cares? They shot themselves in the foot. Survival of the fittest! Now the world has their ideas, so all is not lost. It's just spread around. Think Marx, or more appropriately, Robin Hood.
I wouldn't go this far since I have an affinity for Valve's work -- although I have yet to see a concrete explanation for how exactly they have "lost" their multimillion-dollar investments -- but it's a solid POV if you're able to be more detached from the situation. Robin Hood et al. stand on their own (rather starkly, no doubt), but I'll touch on the foot-shooting:
All the rage on the techie sites is where the blame lies. Microsoft making buggy software? Microsoft not forcing patches strongly enough? (obligatory frivolous lawsuit∞) Stupid developers? Incompetent IT staff? Poor management in balancing the concerns of each?
I probably give it away in my phrasing, but I put the blame squarely on the latter personel. We software guys like the CVS to be readily accessible 24/7. Coupled with (sometimes rightfully) thinking they run the place, they can cripple even the best administrators when the admins want to move dev boxes off the main network or spend a day regression-testing a patch. This is where the Guys In Charge(tm) should step in. FWIW, they are now the guys who will be eating their collective crow whenever those evanescent losses kick in.
Even WRT cheating, I wouldn't get too worried. They've had 5 years to improve the network code; hopefully they came up with a protocol such that even source access can't break it. After all, crackers would have access to packet sniffers and disassemblers regardless.