Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
Hi everyone.
I've had a question on my mind for a while now that's been bugging me.
Say someone works hard on making a quality TAS and ends up getting it published. Then, say someone else comes along, takes that input file and manages to save...one frame on it. Afterwards, said person submits this one-frame improvement as their superior run, obsoleting the previous movie.
To be rather blunt, wouldn't this be a d*ck move? Take a long movie like Final Fantasy 8, for example. Would tasvideos accept a run of FF8 with 1758778 frames, over DarkKobold's 1758779?
I'm not saying I would consider pulling a move like that. It's just the thought of it that bothers me; of having one's work (input file) obsoleted by someone who merely takes the file and simply "improves it" by a single frame.
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
This is just my opinion, so it might not apply to anyone else, but I personally feel that this is the right way to do things. If you let 1 frame improvements not make a difference, people would then start arguing over 2, then 3, then 4, and so on. After all, it is only 1 frame more than the previous. It becomes a lot more simple just to say that if it's quicker then it's better (with a few differences here and there where slower movies obsolete due to entertainment). Despite only being 1 frame quicker, it is still 1 quicker, so yes, I think that it should obsolete for just 1 frame improvement, no matter how long the game is.
Current TAS:
[SNES] Jelly Boy
[NES] Street Fighter 2010
If you simply copy their input, and save one frame somewhere, then they should be listed as co-author. If you redo it, possibly copying their strategies, then imo, it's a valid improvement, no matter how few frames you beat them by. Everyone copies strategies from others, that doesn't warrant listing someone as an author, unless you want to.
Technically speaking, when you submit an entry, you are kind of indirectly accepting that 1) it may not be published, and 2) even if it is, anybody can later obsolete it with a faster/better one.
I completely understand that this might suck, especially if the entry was really laborious and you spent months making it, but it would be difficult to come up with something that would be "fair" in this subjective sense. After all, the purpose of the site is to always keep the best version of a run.
If it's any solace, at least the site keeps track of the entire history of runs for a particular game, so even obsoleted runs will never completely disappear.
Take a long movie like Final Fantasy 8, for example. Would tasvideos accept a run of FF8 with 1758778 frames, over DarkKobold's 1758779?
As has been already stated, if the entire input is the same except for an extremely small portion of it, it will probably be obsoleted as having two authors. (And even then, there might be some room for judicious rejection in a case of such a microscopic improvement, especially if the vast majority of the input has simply been copied as-is.)
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Wow haha I remember when Phil pulled this shit on Sleepz :D I think it was either for Super Mario Bros 1 or 2.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
AngerFist wrote:
Wow haha I remember when Phil pulled this shit on Sleepz :D I think it was either for Super Mario Bros 1 or 2.
Submission topic in question
It's from 2005, but there's some interesting discussion (and vitriol) in it about this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Well you could just be happy that a game you like has been pushed to its limits even further. If they made the movie from scratch, then surely that person can claim to have put in just as much effort as you did; if not an even greater amount, and as such should still get published.
If they just hex'd in the improvement from the other author, then I would consider that unethical and lazy. But you don't seem to realise that the original author could do the exact same thing, and so change his original movie or create another submission. Then there'd be the question of "Original+Improvement VS Clone+Improvement", and whose movie should be published? Well clearly people would vote for the original author to be published, resolving any ethics issue.
And if that doesn't work, then just simply use this lack of justice as motivation to create another TAS. Comb over ever nook and cranny of the game until you can finally find an improvement and get your name back on that TAS like you deserve it.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
I appreciate the thoughtful responses from everyone.
As has been already stated, if the entire input is the same except for an extremely small portion of it, it will probably be obsoleted as having two authors. (And even then, there might be some room for judicious rejection in a case of such a microscopic improvement, especially if the vast majority of the input has simply been copied as-is.)
This is the kind of situation that would irk me the most; a simple copy/paste (hex edit?) of someone's previous work to go along with a minimal improvement (e.g. 1 frame). Kind of like someone taking Jimi Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower", adding a tap of the drum, and calling it the superior song.
If they just hex'd in the improvement from the other author, then I would consider that unethical and lazy. But you don't seem to realise that the original author could do the exact same thing, and so change his original movie or create another submission. Then there'd be the question of "Original+Improvement VS Clone+Improvement", and whose movie should be published? Well clearly people would vote for the original author to be published, resolving any ethics issue.
Good point. I, too, would vote for the original author in that case, over someone doing a lazy hex edit.
And if that doesn't work, then just simply use this lack of justice as motivation to create another TAS. Comb over ever nook and cranny of the game until you can finally find an improvement and get your name back on that TAS like you deserve it.
I like that last part. Competition breeds motivation, doesn't it?
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
1. You can give the other person credit as co-author like what I did in this run.
2. This situation could be difficult to avoid in games that feature a lot of down time or just very short.*
*I would've listed a certain Castlevania GBA TAS as an example, but since I know nothing about it, I'm not certain if this is the case.
And that's why it's incorrect to draw the line between "copying input" and "reproducing the same input by hand". You have no way to tell which method was used, and both are valid options if the result is going to be the same.
I think I know why many people tend to draw the line here. With old tools there was physical delimitation between using rerecords for testing alternative approaches (actual TASing) and using an external hexeditor for splicing/copypasting (resyncing).
But since the progress doesn't stand still, you have to account the fact that it's perfectly possible to do both activities at the same time (e.g. in TAS Editor), so a quick copypasting + semiautomatic resyncing becomes as natural and trivial as using Frame Advance. Both activities (TASing and resyncing) blend together seamlessly - a moment ago you were experimenting with the first pipe in SMB, and in the next second you're splicing HappyLee's version of running to the end of 1-1. Of course you could record your own playthrough for the level ending segment (and maybe later you will rewrite it just for the sake of owning the entire input), but doing it mid-TASing would be inefficient, because you only want to quickly resync the level to the end, to see if your improvement doesn't break the flagpole glitch. Most likely it does, so the improvement fails, and you are going to lose a lot of time if you're afraid of copy/paste tool.
Copying input is similar to using third-party code in programming. Many people like to create their own bicycles, but emotions aside it's usually more efficient to use known frameworks/libraries/implementations. Especially when prototyping/experimenting, where big investments are undesirable.
Software developers kind of solved the ethical question - the code is distributed under many different licences. I guess we need some similar instrument of regulation, but taking into account the nature of TASing. Just please don't go for any naive restrictive approaches, which would be counterproductive.
For example, if you're going to play the "common sense" card saying that an honestly reproduced strategy usually contains slightly different input, then it's not going to work. Once you start detecting "copypasted parts" by comparing input logs, people will start adding semi-random noise (e.g. holding jump button when in air, or holding Start button longer, etc), and FYI this is incredibly easy to do in an Input Editor with Auto-restoring feature (basically, you select a segment you want to obfuscate, then start adding/removing buttonpresses while watching the constantly updated results of emulation and undoing any radical changes).
---------------------------------------------
TL;DR: Hexediting has nothing to do with ethics. It's just a tool. And the question of ethics should be solved by introducing various co-authorship models instead of the single existing model ("the last author gets everything").
Software developers kind of solved the ethical question - the code is distributed under many different licences. I guess we need some similar instrument of regulation, but taking into account the nature of TASing.
http://tasvideos.org/SiteLicense.html
As long as credit is given, there's nothing ethically wrong with copying someone's input, because they've already given permission for anyone to do so. If they don't want people to copy their input, they should not have submitted it.
As long as credit is given, there's nothing ethically wrong with copying someone's input, because they've already given permission for anyone to do so.
Yes, but the credit can be given in various ways: either just mentioning the old author in submission text, or adding their name as a co-author, or not mentioning the name at all (since the name is already mentioned in current publication, which is going to be obsoleted and thus linked back). Currently, the chosen way of giving the credit depends completely on the new author's attitude. Perhaps we could elaborate some general rules (when it's better to add a co-author and when there's no need).
Yes, but the credit can be given in various ways: either just mentioning the old author in submission text, or adding their name as a co-author, or not mentioning the name at all (since the name is already mentioned in current publication, which is going to be obsoleted and thus linked back). Currently, the chosen way of giving the credit depends completely on the new author's attitude. Perhaps we could elaborate some general rules (when it's better to add a co-author and when there's no need).
Given that the keypress files are published under a certain publication license (hidden somewhere in the innards of the website), said license already stipulates how the original authors have to be credited.
Given that the keypress files are published under a certain publication license (hidden somewhere in the innards of the website), said license already stipulates how the original authors have to be credited.
The link to the licence is right above, in RachelB post. However, I don't see an exact wording how the original author shall be credited. If you see it, please quote the text.
Direct link to the Creative Commons license page: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/
The short version is that it just says you have to give credit where you used the other persons' work.
There was a LOT of brouhaha about whether copying strategies is the same as copying input when [1860] GBC Pokémon: Yellow Version "save glitch" by p4wn3r in 01:09.63 was submitted, because it was a direct re-creation of a movie by gia, but he (gia) never submitted it or released the VBM, so p4wn3r was basically recreating it from scratch. I believe the final consensus was was summed up in the analogy "the strategies are like a recipe, the final input is like a cake. TASVideos accepts cakes, not recipes."
The short version is that it just says you have to give credit where you used the other persons' work.
So, it looks like the license doesn't contain an answer to the question of this topic.
The question is: if the majority of original movie was copied (no matter how), should the original author be considered a co-author or not?
boct1584 wrote:
There was a LOT of brouhaha about whether copying strategies is the same as copying input when [1860] GBC Pokémon: Yellow Version "save glitch" by p4wn3r in 01:09.63 was submitted, because it was a direct re-creation of a movie by gia, but he (gia) never submitted it or released the VBM, so p4wn3r was basically recreating it from scratch. I believe the final consensus was was summed up in the analogy "the strategies are like a recipe, the final input is like a cake. TASVideos accepts cakes, not recipes."
I think it's not even a question, of course copying strategies is perfectly fine.
I was mostly saying that copying input is also fine. We just need to figure out the best way to attribute authorship.
I believe the final consensus was was summed up in the analogy "the strategies are like a recipe, the final input is like a cake. TASVideos accepts cakes, not recipes."
Which is ironic, given that recipes do not fall under copyright, while individual performances do.
Then there's also the principle of proportionality to be taken into account when it comes to actual publishing. I see two basic cases:
A. The minor improvement is accompanied by a change in playing style, i.e. one can easily visually tell apart the old movie from the new one, not by length but by gameplay changes (playaround for instance).
B. A significant portion of gameplay is copied from previous movie and a viewer could not visually distinguish between old and new movie (in the case of e.g. Final Fantasy say a dialog window is closed one frame earlier, rest of input is copied).
Publishing can be a laborious task and depending on movie length and triviality of improvement I, for my part, would refuse to publish such a movie if it falls under category B above (e.g. someone improves Billy Hatcher by one frame and doesn't touch the previous movie otherwise), although it is a valid improvement length-wise and would as such be accepted for publication.
Edit: What about cases where changing one frame has cascading effects (different lag patterns, RNG)? Adaption may be trivial or not.
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Edit: What about cases where changing one frame has cascading effects (different lag patterns, RNG)? Adaption may be trivial or not.
If you have to rebuild significant portions of the input for any reason, then it's reasonable to claim authorship; you might well still list the previous author in the "special thanks" section of the publication, but you wouldn't be obligated. It doesn't matter if the visible improvement is only a single frame; what really matters is the amount of work you put into the run.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Actually, now that I think about it, maybe it IS quite enough to only mention previous authors in the submission text for most of cases. At least I personally wouldn't demand being a co-author of a movie that improves my old records, even if the new movie copies some of my playaround antics (some games have very limited opportunities to entertain).
So I wouldn't object if the site stated clearly (somewhere on the license-related page) that "Any submission recognized as a valid improvement to a published movie can freely use the old movie input without giving co-authorship to the old author, unless the judge or the new author himself considers it necessary."
This way the question can be handled by judges case-by-case. For example, 1 frame saved in SMB may be considered big enough improvement for completely changing the authorship, while the same 1 frame in Final Fantasy probably wouldn't be even accepted for publication, and the same 1 frame in SMW "Glitched" would probably need a co-authorship (judge may either check the opinion of the audience of just decide it for himself, of course weighting in the new author's opinion and explanations).
Derakon wrote:
If you have to rebuild significant portions of the input for any reason, then it's reasonable to claim authorship; you might well still list the previous author in the "special thanks" section of the publication, but you wouldn't be obligated. It doesn't matter if the visible improvement is only a single frame; what really matters is the amount of work you put into the run.
Agree, just with one clarification: the amount of useful work you put into the run.
