Page 4 of 4

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 06 Oct 2012, 11:54
by knorke
smoth wrote:How so?
If downloading BA is "illegal*" because of TA content, then downloading Upspring has the same problem. It contains the same files.
In a way it is worse because unlike BA, Upspring is used to create new illegal content:
Afaik if you use illegal software (even wrong type of license can be a problem) the stuff created with that is also illegal.
In theory it is possible to make a mod without Upspring but afaik nothing like that was released yet.
A pirate is you!

on mantis: http://springrts.com/mantis/view.php?id=3294

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 06 Oct 2012, 16:06
by smoth
That is faulty and warped logic. I am not sure if you are trying to make a joke by exaggerating what is pirated/warez or serious.

Unless your model is actually using those textures you have created nothing illegal. the upspring archive that is getting passed around needs to have to ota files stripped out of it. That is all. I feel you are exaggerating the situation with upspring. Thanks for posting the mantis I didn't think of that

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 06 Oct 2012, 20:52
by PicassoCT
Its the original sin allover again - and we can only be absolved by cruxifing Stallman, drinking his blood and eating his body!

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 09 Oct 2012, 14:41
by AF
There is no point in debating the rights and wrongs legally, because it doesn't matter.

If Atari wants, it could destroy this site, the games, and most of the community on a whim. We could argue all we want, but wether we're right is irrelevant, because Atari has the resources and legal prowess it needs.

Atari could know full well given an equal in court it would have lost, but it would still do it anyway.

What's more, non *A games could be shot at for 'enabling' the *A games "anybody can just download Evo, remove the engine, and plonk our IP in there and get TA", then there's the derivative works "That model wasn't produced by us, but clearly it is a Goliath, and that's diluting our brand".

What's more they're likely to wait until the very last moment, having known for years. If they're bothered enough to do any of that, they'll ignore any 'licenses' we've put on our content. Who cares if it's GPL, we want it down.

Likely reasons being:
  • Games like NOTA and BA being seen as a threat to new RTS games using the TA IP
  • Attempts to sell games using Atari IP on the spring engine, possibly with nobody in this community being aware
  • Competition with unrelated IP
  • Sale of the TA IP to a troll company, much in the way we have patent trolls
I'm sure after the Ataripocalypse we'll all be on Reddit raging at how unfair and illegal it all was, and chances are we're probably right. Atari has made no defence of its TA IP, but that doesn't matter.

Atari would likely send cease and desist letters to springfiles & Licho. Should it progress, Licho and JJ would likely have the servers taken out from under them by their hosting companies thanks to Atari involvement.


The one thing I will say that is ironclad, is that if you've played BA, or NOTA, you should own a copy of Original Total Annihilation. Not because it's a defence against Atari, but as a gesture of honour and respect, to Atari, to Cavedog, to the game itself, and to the community.

TA was our heritage, and there are no excuses for not owning a copy but playing TA based content. It's trivially cheap to buy and available online internationally.

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 09 Oct 2012, 15:07
by gajop
The big bad corporations aren't almighty as you would seem to think, otherwise there would probably be no FOSS out there.
There are grounds for IP infringement in the case of BA, but you probably wouldn't be able to hurt even the similar games with it (ZK/evo), and especially not abstract, weird looking things like that journeywar project picasso has been doing (although i heard valve might have a take on that?).

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 09 Oct 2012, 16:49
by AF
It's not so much the almighty nature of Atari, but rather the utter helplessness. Blizzard could probably do the same thing, knowing full well it isn't even their IP, they'd lose in court, no grounds to continue, probably be thrown out.

But the cost of funding the lawyers, and mounting a response would cripple the community, and most of our online presence would be taken down no questions asked by hosting companies who don't contest/fight these things.

I doubt Zero-K is truly immune, it's not like any of the units in ZK look like the cavedog units they're based on, or share names...

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 09 Oct 2012, 17:10
by BaNa
good lord AF, you out-derped everybody in the thread by far.

Image

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 09 Oct 2012, 20:34
by luckywaldo7
Really, I thought there was a pretty thick line between ripping content out of a cd and not.

Especially the idea that even Evo is somehow infringing through the engine is laughable.

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 09 Oct 2012, 21:18
by PicassoCT
Forbs ego is a direct copy of Christ Taylors, i can tell having seen similar chatlogs in gamesmagazine interviews before.

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 10 Oct 2012, 00:17
by Forboding Angel
Don't mistake my being right for having a large ego.

Re: *A games, spring, legal status

Posted: 10 Oct 2012, 03:06
by smoth
that's what she said. (yes the thread has already jumped the shark)