What, so people wouldn't understand "Doom game?" They're all perfectly valid options; that's why the details matter
By the same logic we should consider "Super Metroid" its own platform, "Super Mario Bros" its own platform, etc.
Afaik, in this case it's because Doom works as a platform. The demo files store input only, and there are enough games using the doom engine to give it a fair number of runs. If I'm interpreting this correctly, if a game's input file doesn't meet these, it would either be categorized as its OS or not accepted at all.
I don't see how that's relevant to classify it as its own "platform". Doom is not a piece of hardware.
By that logic each emulator should be considered its own "platform" instead of the hardware it's emulating. Which would make no sense.
I think people are getting too hung up with the underlying details, not seeing the forest from the trees.
I think everybody understand perfectly if, let's say, the terms "PC game", "Xbox One game" and "PS4 game" are used, regardless of how similar the underlying hardware design might be between those devices or, conversely, how radically different two PC's might internally be (but which nevertheless is able to run PC games).
Is the fact that there are different (and incompatible) operating systems available for PC, and therefore games made for those different OS's, relevant? They all run on a PC.
When the distinction was between DOS and Windows, then it might have made sense. But if we start adding game-specific TAS files as their own platform each, then the whole things starts being nonsensical. They are all running on the same hardware, and that should be distinction enough.
I'm against the option of PC due to the huge ambiquity of the term, so I feel DOOM is the next best option
What ambiguity? The PC hardware is pretty de-facto standardized. (It's a combination of x86-compatible processor with a certain memory and I/O layout, which allows certain specific OS's and programs to run on it.)
It's clearly distinct from other hardware architectures such as consoles and other computers (both older and newer).
The advantage of using a single "PC" platform category is that if (and probably when) in the future there's a TAS of something running on a non-DOS non-Windows OS in a PC, we don't need to create a new platform for that.
totally noob question,but doesn't that affect lag calculations because of more detailed textures?(not that the n64 emulators were decent about it to begin with..)
I don't think an emulator cares what the speed of the host computer is, or how heavy it is to display the image; it will still emulate the game accurately, like the original hardware (even if it so happens that the host machine is so slow that it can't display it in real time.) Well, at least if the emulator is competently implemented.
IMO it kind of detracts from the interest of the project when a highly-modified version of the game is used. They are essentially running a rather different game from the original; someone's personal mod of it.
They already ran the original version.
You say that like I didn't know it.
(Besides, technically speaking the first TPP wasn't done on a completely unmodified game either. It was slightly modded.)
IMO it kind of detracts from the interest of the project when a highly-modified version of the game is used. They are essentially running a rather different game from the original; someone's personal mod of it.
For the same reason that an SMB run is not required to complete The Lost Levels as well.
I don't even understand what you are talking about.
As was a common strategy for DOS Shareware games back in the day, the various episodes of Doom are in fact separate games, with the first one available for free and the others sold separately. That they all run on the same engine is immaterial; it is not uncommon for a sequel to use the same engine as an earlier game.
The three episodes were all part of the one and same game. Just because the shareware version had only part of the game included doesn't change that fact. The shareware version was an incomplete version of the game.
Allowing only part of a game to be completed, and considered a full TAS on its own right, would be rather unusual and exceptional. Are there any other examples of this?
The most common other interpretation for when the run is completed is the point at which no further input can prevent the run from finishing (short of resetting or the like).
Input should end when no further input can make the game end faster.
There's plenty of case to be made for fair use here: the work is transformative, non-commercial, highly creative and does not compete with or harm the market for the original product.
Even if you could make a case for the video, I don't think you can make the same case for the soundtrack.
Music is in some way "more protected" than other material. (I don't really understand why that is, but it just is.) You only need to use a few seconds of a copyrighted song in your own production for it to be illegal, even if the entire rest of the production is completely original. Somehow "fair use" of songs is much stricter than for other material.
Even if TAS videos could be legally argued to be fair use in their graphical content, you would still have hard time arguing for the soundtrack to be fair use, especially since many TASes feature entire songs/melodies (but, as said, even a few seconds is enough for infringement.)
Parodies (á la Weird Al) are protected in some jurisdictions, but TASes are not parodies of the music.
Personally I would not trust Nintendo's website, or even Nintendo's lawyers on this particular topic. They have a vested interest in making people think that ROMs are illegal. I'm not saying they're wrong, as I lack the legal knowledge one way or another; I'm just saying that I'd rather see a legal opinion from someone who isn't working for a major videogame company.
It depends on the jurisdiction. For example in Finland the law is quite (and unusually) unambiguous: Buying a piece of software is completely equivalent to buying a license to use said software. When you have such a legit license, you have the inalienable right to make backup copies, and it doesn't matter if you use the software from its original medium or from a backup copy. The IP owner cannot deny you those rights. (Even if the software came with a usage license that forbids you from doing those things, it would be ineffective. The usage license cannot override the law. And the law explicitly states this.)
If you rescind your license to use the software, eg. by giving or selling the original copy of it to somebody else, your right to use any backups also ends (at which point using them would become illegal.)
If Nintendo is saying that you can't use backups or downloaded ROMs when you own a license to the original, they are just using scare tactics (at least here; of course I can't know the law of every single other country).
Anyway, and as I commented earlier, this however has zero connection to whether you can distribute the material eg. on YouTube.
Warp: thanks for not reading how Fair Use works. Good job!
What are you talking about? Are you saying that if I own a copy of a song, I can upload it to YouTube and it won't be copyright infringement, while it would be if I don't own a copy of the song? I don't understand what you are referring to.
For the sake of discussion, isn't it technically legal though to own a ROM image, provided you also own a copy of the actual game?
Could this be an argument to retain rights in keeping a TAS or playthrough video uploaded?
I don't think you legally owning the game has any relevance to the question of whether uploading material breaks copyright or not.
For example, uploading a copyrighted song to YouTube is copyright infringement completely regardless of whether you own a legit copy of the song or not. That's inconsequential.
(Besides, technically speaking you don't own the game. You own the physical cartridge/disc, and you own a license to play the game, which is what you implicitly get when you buy the game, but you don't own any rights to the game itself. You have no rights to infringe the copyrights of the IP owner.)
It should also be considered that most big corporations are not shy about using bully tactics to take down material they don't like even when the corporation is in the wrong.
These are big corporations with tons of money and an army lawyers. The target will usually be a poor individual with no connections. Even when the individual is technically in the right, unfortunately might makes right.
The question is: When a big corporation sends you a lawsuit threat, are you going to take the risk, or are you simply going to submit to the bullying? Most people are not ready to take the risk, and that's quite understandable. (A big corporation has extremely little to lose; after all, they are billionaires. You, however, have a lot to lose. And you probably can't afford a good lawyer either, lessening your odds even further. And it doesn't help that in many countries courts seem to be very corporation-friendly.)
One thing I might have missed in this discussion: Why are we even considering accepting a partial completion of the game?
This completes only one episode of the game. It has four. This run, thus, does not complete the whole game.
Are you an attorney specialized in copyright law, or otherwise have extensive knowledge and experience on the subject? Because if you are not, and this is not intended to be in any way derogatory or offensive, then your personal opinion doesn't matter much.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer either, nor do I have that much extensive knowledge nor experience. However, I do know that in most jurisdictions (including those where tasvideos.org is hosted, as well as most of YouTube servers) copyright not only protects the original work, but also derivative works.
Perhaps a bit surprisingly, many people don't know about copyright extending to derivative works. For example, the vast majority of so-called fanfic of existing works infringe copyright (but here, too, IP owners seldom care, even though they would have the legal right to shut it down). It also applies to other kinds of derivative works. For example, when Square Enix shut down the unofficial Chrono Trigger: Crimson Echoes fan-made mod, they had the legal right to do so, because it was a derivative work of their IP.
In other words, you can't even use concepts and ideas from a copyrighted work in your own derivative work, not to talk about using actual assets, such as music and graphics. No matter how much you claim that "let's play" and "speedrun" videos are "original work", they use copyrighted assets, including music and graphics. They are pretty much derivative work, and they infringe copyright if you don't have the express permission of the owner of those original assets.
Granted, "let's play" videos are in that gray area between genuine copyright infringement and legally supported fair use, but from what I have seen, they tend to lie a bit on the wrong side of the fuzzy line. IP owners do seem to have the legal right to shoot down such videos if they so desire, and there's nothing you can do about it.
In most jurisdictions "fair use" covers moderate use of the original material for the purpose of review, commentary, criticism and, in some jurisdictions, parody. It does not cover extensive use of the original material in "let's play" videos.
I remember years ago when someone tried to monetize TAS videos on YouTube and I warned that they should not do that. Gameplay videos technically speaking infringe copyright, and the only reason they are allowed is because companies do not care. But if someone starts making money out of them, they might start caring, which is why we should tread very carefully. We do not want to draw too much attention of the IP owners, especially to the main tasvideos site.
(I seem to remember that some people argued that they do not infringe copyright. They do; get over it. Perhaps if their audio is muted there might be a case, maybe, but even then it's dubious. Copyright also protects the graphics assets, and derivative works. The concept of "fair use" is fuzzy, and mostly protects reviews, criticism and parody, and it depends a lot on the jurisdiction.)
For some reason big Japanese companies seem quite dickish about it lately. First Square/Enix, now Nintendo. (And I'm sure Sony has done something like this in later years as well.)
Would it be possible to modify the game engine so that ending the input file doesn't end the game? This way ending at the earliest possible moment would become a non-issue.
Even at the risk of sounding like a broken record and a contrarian, I got sick of ACE like a year ago, and this didn't change my mind.
But as long as this doesn't replace the actual game completion TAS, it's ok.
