You released something that you in no way have copyright to and he copied it and put out a TAS that isn't up to your standards. Put out one that shames him and we will all cheer you on.
Or figure out a way to copyright the input used to control a video game and I'm sure Ubisoft or EA will pay you trillions... then you can whine all you want and have the law on your side.
<i>A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.</i>
You released something that you in no way have copyright to and he copied it and put out a TAS that isn't up to your standards. Put out one that shames him and we will all cheer you on.
Or figure out a way to copyright the input used to control a video game and I'm sure Ubisoft or EA will pay you trillions... then you can whine all you want and have the law on your side.
You do not seem to understand how copyright works. Ofcourse it's his copyright as it's an inputfile he created. Just as savegames you create are your copyright. just ask a copyight laywer. (this stuff actually came up when the twiizers made the twilight hack)
But even if it wasn't against the law it would certainly be against site rules. As it should be.
Following your logic I can grab Grunzs last WIP, before he defeats majora, in a few months, deal the final blow to it and then submit the TAS as my own.
@Tub
You really compare the work that goes into an optimised TAS of this length to the work that goes into finding a trick? How long have you been on this site?
Btw. the reason that nobody cedits ISG is that it's older than dirt and nobody really knows who found it anymore.
You released something that you in no way have copyright to and he copied it and put out a TAS that isn't up to your standards. Put out one that shames him and we will all cheer you on.
Or figure out a way to copyright the input used to control a video game and I'm sure Ubisoft or EA will pay you trillions... then you can whine all you want and have the law on your side.
You do not seem to understand how copyright works. Ofcourse it's his copyright as it's an inputfile he created. Just as savegames you create are your copyright. just ask a copyight laywer. (this stuff actually came up when the twiizers made the twilight hack)
But even if it wasn't against the law it would certainly be against site rules. As it should be.
Following your logic I can grab Grunzs last WIP, before he defeats majora, in a few months, deal the final blow to it and then submit the TAS as my own.
I can assure you he does not have copyright on the input contained in that file.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html
How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
Maybe I'm missing something?
<i>A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day.</i>
Arguably, in the case of FCEUX, it is released under the GNU GPL. I assume Mupen is released under some similar license. The source code is available obviously.
According to Wikipedia: The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms.
At least in the case of FCEUX, anyone else is entitled to freely use works (input files) produced on it. I assume the same is true of Mupen.
There is really nothing protecting Grunz's run other than the discretion of our site at what it publishes. I think the members of the site all support the idea of giving credit where it is due.
As long as abeshi fully credits MrGrunz for relevant input and strategies, there is nothing wrong with the run having been made. After all, there is nothing wrong with running a test run off someone's work in progress. If this test run had just been posted in the Majora's Mask thread, would everyone have been so irritated? Then someone would have requested an encode and we would be at the same place we are now. It really is a matter of perspective. The only reason it didn't happen like that is likely due to the language barrier.
and no, trick discoveries is in no way comperable with input.
That's the point I disagree on, and you merely stated this as a fact, without providing any arguments that might help me understand your view.
I understand why you're not happy about the situation (in your situation I probably wouldn't be, either), but that was not the question I've been asking.
MrGrunz wrote:
the only reason why the MM TAS was supposed to be that enjoyable to watch was the fact, that we could see so much new stuff there
so.. why did you release a WIP and tricks? Not sharing isn't the nice thing to do either, but releasing your tricks AND expecting them to be new and surprising when the run is finished doesn't really add up.
All things considered, I understand your frustration, but abeshi didn't actually release any of your stuff you didn't release yourself. And while he was doing it, he found a few tricks that'll help you and released them, too. Call me a glass-half-full guy, but in the end, it'll make your run better, not worse.
(but again, I know why you see things differently right now. You're human, and naturally the first instinct is "THAT GUY STOLE MY RUN!!". Hope you'll see things differently in a few day's time; in any case I'm glad you're working on your run and look forward to the day when it's finished.)
BTW, novelty isn't the only thing that makes a TAS interesting to watch. There are TASes I've watched dozens of times and will continue to watch.
Slowking wrote:
You really compare the work that goes into an optimised TAS of this length to the work that goes into finding a trick? How long have you been on this site?
No, I'm comparing the work that went into a few snippets of input that were reused (the thing abeshi did that's supposed to be bad) to the work that went into hundreds of tricks and routes that were developed by several people over the course of several years; tricks which every new zelda TAS uses and which is generally considered to be OK without asking for permission or giving credit.
I didn't check which parts were reused (or how many), but the arguments I saw in this thread all revolved around the kind of work that was copied, not the amount of work. Many argued that input was copied, but noone argued that the route was copied, even though the combined amount of work that eventually lead to the creation of the route is pretty huge.
@Wren: the method (a bomb jump) can be patented while copyright can apply to a specific implementation (the input file doing a bomb jump). In most countries, both things can be protected by law, just by different parts of it, with different requirements and restrictions.
But copyright usually requires the implementation to be non-trivial (i.e. a whole run, not a short snippet), and the US copyright law you cite has this Fair Use thing, which may or may not apply in this case, and is moot in japan anyway.
I don't consider laws made for the industry to be very useful here...
@Kirkq: something created with a program usually is not a derivative work of the program. If you wrote a new emulator based on FCEUX, then you'd have a derivative work of FCEUX. If you paint a picture, it's not a derivative work of photoshop (but possibly a derivative work of other images you used in the process). This post is not a derivative work of my browser. The letter you wrote is not a derivative work of your pen.
As such, the runs on this site aren't necessarily GPL'ed.
Whether the run is a derivative work of majora's mask is an entirely different question I cannot answer. Hopefully it'll never be relevant for this site ;)
Of course IANAL.
nice to see you understanding me, tub.
but you said noone was arguing about the route and tricks being copied. I meant to do that in every post of mine.
it's actually the only real reason, why I am annoyed. abeshi just took the route I created and the tricks and strategies I found and made a quick TAS out of it. of course, there's nothing wrong about it, everybody is allowed to TAS whatever they want when they want.
but now to say it a last single time. you guys are not supposed to agree with me on that- it's just again how I am feeling.
the only reason I've been searching tricks and strategies, creating routes and finally TASed the game was to see me submit a TAS, that shows everything new I have found for the first time in a full game TAS and to see you guys being impressed by it. I did not work on that to see people now being impressed by his TAS.
no reason to understand me, but that's how it is. sounds childish, it may is, but ok.
and tub, you said uploading WIPs didn't really help for my TAS being completely new in the end. I know this, my subscribers wanted to see something after the long wait, so they got something.
and yes, there are a few minor things that will make my run better.
about input trick discovery thing:
if input wasn't copyrighted in some way, I could just download the m64 of someones TAS, change nothing and call it my work.
trick discoveries are something like knownledge everybody has to be able to have access to. input is material, something like a picture I painted. you can't take my picture and call it yours. bad example, but best I could come up with^^
How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.
Maybe I'm missing something?
Now you are grasping at straws here. It's not a method of doing something. It's an input file with very clear commands. It's like sheet music. And is it illegal to copy parts of another artists sheet music into your own sheet music and then sell it as your own song? You bet your ass it is.
Kirkq wrote:
Arguably, in the case of FCEUX, it is released under the GNU GPL. I assume Mupen is released under some similar license. The source code is available obviously.
According to Wikipedia: The GPL is the first copyleft license for general use, which means that derived works can only be distributed under the same license terms.
At least in the case of FCEUX, anyone else is entitled to freely use works (input files) produced on it. I assume the same is true of Mupen.
The emulator being open source has nothing to do with the copyright of the input file.
It's like saying all documents created by Open Office have no copyright and thus I can sell the Harry Potter books and don't have to give J.K. Rowling a dime!
Sonikkustar wrote:
Grunz, Seriously. Stop being such an insensitinve racist prick.
How was he racist? o.O
Tub wrote:
No, I'm comparing the work that went into a few snippets of input that were reused (the thing abeshi did that's supposed to be bad) to the work that went into hundreds of tricks and routes that were developed by several people over the course of several years; tricks which every new zelda TAS uses and which is generally considered to be OK without asking for permission or giving credit.
I didn't check which parts were reused (or how many), but the arguments I saw in this thread all revolved around the kind of work that was copied, not the amount of work. Many argued that input was copied, but noone argued that the route was copied, even though the combined amount of work that eventually lead to the creation of the route is pretty huge.
Well there is quite a difference. You can't argue that "oh he only stole snippets and those won't take that much longer than finding glitches". They are part of a way bigger work and when you rip parts from it you diminish the original.
Otherwise it would be allowed to sample parts of famous songs without the original authors preission, which it's not for good reason.
Btw. I really do think authors of TASes should list the glitches they used and credit the guy who originally discovered it but that's still something different than stealing input.
The emulator being open source has nothing to do with the copyright of the input file.
Tub wrote:
@Kirkq: something created with a program usually is not a derivative work of the program.
Yeah I think you guys are right. Tub's point that the input supplied to Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development's Majora's Mask may be under some stipulation is worth considering though.
I started to think prohibiting introducing missing TASes on nicovideo without their permission because the site is members only unlike youtube and the audience is quite different. Yet I know many missing TASes I’d like to introduce. Some are obsoleting the movies here and worth submitting.
Well, Seiken Densetsu 3, my current project, is being TASed by 3 people including me separately, which might be a problem like this but I hope you guys cooperate from now. It’s ridiculous to take many days to publish due to minor improvements like the latest SM64 after submitting. (Of course, I understand their situation and honor their attitudes.)
I am sure Mr. Grunz shall never give up TASing this game and finally make the best TAS ever.
So why is it okay for MrGrunz (and everyone else) to use extended superslides without asking for permission, while input must not be touched?
lol, i should have got copyright for some tricks i found in turok 1, then nobody could have beat my run.
MrGrunz wrote:
next time you post a m64 of a TAS you are working on, I'll just download it and go on with it without telling you. then 3 months later I'll upload the TAS and don't tell anybody, that I used your inputs.
i'm sort of working on wysters Perfect Dark TAS, but you can download the m64 and finish it for me :P
now abeshi arrives, reads all my routes, watches all my trick and strategies videos, downloads my TAS and quickly puts a new TAS together.
that can happen in popular games, if you don't TAS them fast enough.
Wren wrote:
Or figure out a way to copyright the input used to control a video game and I'm sure Ubisoft or EA will pay you trillions... then you can whine all you want and have the law on your side.
rofl
MrGrunz wrote:
if input wasn't copyrighted in some way, I could just download the m64 of someones TAS, change nothing and call it my work.
i guess a TAS could be called intellectual property.
neo_omegon wrote:
I started to think prohibiting introducing missing TASes on nicovideo without their permission because the site is members only unlike youtube and the audience is quite different.
btw, i wonder if abeshi would be ok with someone (like webnations) uploading his TAS to youtube, so that more people would notice it.
I started to think prohibiting introducing missing TASes on nicovideo without their permission because the site is members only unlike youtube and the audience is quite different.
btw, i wonder if abeshi would be ok with someone (like webnations) uploading his TAS to youtube, so that more people would notice it.
Probably not. Webnations uploaded my runs without asking but I appreciate him.
I just fear the similar situations will occur so I don't feel like introducing the runs without thinking.
Shit I forgot to cite Brahmagupta as the owner of the quadratic formula on my math test, I might get kicked out of university for academic dishonesty...
Gets made fun of for still playing his NES and N64
I think julianface metaphored it pretty well.
Using skills/discoveries from other people :
julianface wrote:
Shit I forgot to cite Brahmagupta as the owner of the quadratic formula on my math test, I might get kicked out of university for academic dishonesty...
Copying input :
Copying someone else's homework.
IMO it's not about the rules. There are little or no 'legal' rules for TASes that can be applied to modern society. It's all about ethics, morals, and code of conduct.
We're trying to play games in the most optimal way. As there is only one optimal way, the input files will start to look more and more alike with each optimization. It just seems silly to, rather than copy someones work, do it all yourself and then end up with exactly the same input file.
We don't need rules for this. And if we are gonna get some, I suggest that any TAS submitted here goes into the public domain.
Much like Scepheo was saying, claiming copyright on complete/partial input files is just stupid. If I'm improving a tightly optimized run, I need to examine frame by frame what the previous author has done and I'm likely to be copying parts of their movie simply because it's best/most obvious method or I can't improve on it. The only issues I'd ever have is if someone took a video from the site or encoded their own movie from an input file. Claiming it as their own, or worse tried to make some kind of monetry gain from it.
I completely agree. The whole subject is a huge vanity fair. Know how it sounds?
"This vile no-gooder stole my opportunity to impress you, now you won't like me as much as I had hoped! :'<<<<<<<<"
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
nfq wrote:
Acheron86 wrote:
Show me where stolen input has ever been permitted in publication, ever.
In mmbossman's Turok TAS he used a few seconds of my input without my permission. I prefer to say that he used it instead of stole, because I don't think 'stealing' input is a big deal... actually, I'm honored if someone uses my input. But yeah, everyone's different.
I don't remember this (not saying I didn't, I just don't remember it), do you remember which segment I spliced? Turok in general wasn't too much fun to try and splice, so I can't really think of a segment where I would have had the need to.
EDIT: After thinking about it, for the first 3 levels I was way to much of a newbie TASer to even know how to edit a .m64, and I'm nearly positive that I didn't do it in the last 5 levels either (since I did all those in one 3 month stretch). I'm almost certain that you're mistaken, but I'll be happy to go back and check to see if you can point me to an approximate time :)
EDIT: After thinking about it, for the first 3 levels I was way to much of a newbie TASer to even know how to edit a .m64, and I'm nearly positive that I didn't do it in the last 5 levels either (since I did all those in one 3 month stretch). I'm almost certain that you're mistaken, but I'll be happy to go back and check to see if you can point me to an approximate time :)
you mention the input copying here: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=106903&highlight=#106903
i wish you had copied a bit more of my TAS though, like those swimming parts, because they were faster in my run, due to tapping c-up instead of just holding it down.
copying input can save a lot of time for TASers, so i think it's a good thing. there's not really any reason to waste time on doing a new input if there's already a good one out there. but N64 is one of those strange consoles which makes it impossible to copy input because many games have variable/random framerate.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Oh I remember that first section. I can't remember if I went back and redid the first level or not, I restarted that project so many times. I do remember that it was the set-up for the very first jump, and that I copied approximately 20-30 frames of input... but you're right, I may have a half second of your input in there :)
RE: swimming, I believe that I do tap C-up, at a rate of approximately 20 frames held to 2-3 frames off. But it's been a long time since I even watched that movie, let alone work on it, so I couldn't tell you for sure. And because it's 3D, simply splicing input leads to big desync issues if you're even a little bit off with your set up(especially in tight places like the swimming tunnels). Oh well.
Joined: 2/12/2008
Posts: 67
Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA
I don't post much here, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, but...
It seems that one obvious thing to do to solve this problem would be to have an official section for shout-outs, thanks, and credits for each run. A lot of people do that informally, but it'd be great to have a rule become somewhat official: if you use techniques or input from someone else's run or WIPs, then you should credit them with the techniques and input, and include a link to the run or WIP. That way, credit goes where credit is due. Kinda like scientific citations, intentionally not doing this would be considered plagiarism. Also like scientific citations, people who don't currently have the WR run on the site but came up with lots of techniques and tricks would get recognized.
It's probably not worth caring about legal implications of copying movie input, although I agree with the idea that they can be considered as a form of artwork. And I won't talk about the ethical implications right now.
However, I think there are some issues as far as this site's guidelines go. As far as I can tell, the goal of creating movies for this site is to make them as perfect as you can make them (e.g. whatever the particular movie's goals are, entertainment or whatever, you have to meet them as well as you can, not sloppily). Now, everyone has their own personal standards and methods of doing things. Suppose I make a movie for submission here to obsolete a previous movie, and I copy a lot of its input from that other movie. Consider these three possibilities or categories I could fit into:
If I am capable of improving the input that I copied, I would be submitting a movie that contains sloppy input compared to what I could accomplish. Therefore I clearly shouldn't copy the input.
If I am capable of exactly matching the level of perfection of the input that I copied, then it makes sense to not duplicate the effort and simply reuse the input. But, how could I know I fall into this category without trying it first? And if I try it first then I will have no need to reuse the existing input since I will already have my own, unless mine is actually worse in which case I'm really in category 3 below and not this one. Therefore I have no reason to copy the input if I want to be as sure as I can be that I've created the movie as well as I can.
If I am not capable of even matching the level of perfection of the input that I copied, then it's likely that I'm not qualified to meet the community's standards in creating a successor to a movie of whatever game it is. Therefore I probably shouldn't make the movie at all, or I should try harder until I fit into category 1 or 2 above.
Now, I realize that things aren't quite so black and white, our standards don't all exist on one axis and we don't have infinite time at our disposal, so copying input can be justified and I'm not saying that the cases where it's happened in the past shouldn't have happened. But I think the above conclusions still apply in most cases, which suggest that it's usually a bad idea to copy input, no matter whether the original author would want you to or not, when the input is intended to be submitted to a site that has standards like this one.
Nitsuja, you're only using "copy" as in literally using the copy-paste function. However, when talking about copyright, copying means any method that results in the same result. Whether you copy a book by using a copy machine or by hand doesn't matter. Even if you decide to write your own book and you accidentally make an exact copy (for the sake of argument, in court, a rough copy will usually do) of a book you've never even heard of, it's still copyright infringement.
Imagine I attempt to do a level myself, and I do so to the best of my abilities, but still end up with exactly the same input as someone else did. That's copying. And even if I use the same input (say, a crouch-jump trick) in a completely different place, it's still identical input and therefore copying.
I'm quite sure I didn't contradict myself as far as the "we don't need rules for this" bit goes. And yes, you stated you weren't talking about the legal and/or ethical implications of copying input. However, you're still talking about copying input. I would simply prefer your opinion about the kind of copying the rest of the thread is about rather then the ctrl-c ctrl-v function.
Reading it again however, I must admit my post does seem a bit like a silly attack on yours. But in fact, I agree with it, although I'd like to put some more emphasis on the fact that there are quite a few cases (autoscrollers, very specific improvements, new tricks, lack of time and, HERP-DERP, collaborations) in which copying input can be justified.
