Game music = fair game?

[Stormwatch]

I recall this was established in another thread, quite a long time ago, in a discussion with other users and mods:

game warez = no good
game music = fair game

(Teensy mod edit - changed the topic title into a question to avoid misunderstandings -Ghegs)

[Accutron]

I remember its banishment not being enforced on the old board, but it should've been and I said as much then. There is no logic in rejecting game piracy while simultaneously allowing the piracy of game music.

[Specineff]

Shmups music was being hosted before the redesign. Didn't also Shootthecore have music from Raiden and other games?

[The n00b]

I love the "logic" guys. If they can't get their free games and roms, then the rest of us should be denied game music. Now everyone has nothing. Congrats, guys you "win."

[Turrican]

yet, sharing like a single track out of an entire ost, isn't like "for demonstration purposes"? I mean, technically even posting screenshots is going against copyright, isn't it?

Not to mention the many games whose music was never commercially released...

[benstylus]

You guys are unbelievable. Quit whining about not getting "free" stuff.

What it comes down to is the definition of "fair use" as determined by the mods here and the lawyers elsewhere.

Game roms and ISOs are obviously not legal, so we don't even need to discuss those.

Single tracks of soundtracks for demonstration purposes? If I were a mod I would probably let that fly, but the site linked to yesterday was more than just single tracks. It was full downloadable soundtracks. But hey, even one song off of a popular CD is enough to send the RIAA into a riot, so maybe it's not such a good idea.

Places like Amazon have 30 second samples of some or all of the songs on most CDs, and I tend to think that's probably the best way to do it to still fall within the boundaries of fair use. You're giving people a taste of what the songs are like, and 30 seconds is enough to come to at least some sort of opinion on it.

There was a post linking to some sprite rips that was modded. That one I was somewhat surprised at (though I didn't get to see the site so I don't know if there was other stuff going on there too). But again, that call is for the mods here to make, not for me. As far as "fair use" goes, I don't see a problem with sprite rips any more than I do with screenshots. You can't play a sprite rip, so no game sales are lost. You can't listen to a sprite rip so no soundtrack sales are lost.

About the most ambitious thing people do with sprite rips is make animated gifs and use them as forum avatars.

[umi]

(removed by admin - but it was slightlydark) has the right idea... only long OOP cd's are shared. Shmup-wise, they still have the salamander pro fusion up for download (removed by admin)., so grab that if you haven't heard it, it's a good listen. There are good vgm hubs around too, you just gotta find em.

[system11]

Ok - here's the official line. Whether this was or wasn't the previous way the board ran, the current rules posted here are the ones in use.

We do not link to copyright infinging work here. There are -more- than enough sources for this and ways to find them, you don't need us for that.

Yes, it is _incredibly_ unlikely that we will be harassed by any lawyers about anything really, but it's easier to stay 100% clean, than to keep track of various levels of grey line on the issue. If we did get any complaints, they would end up at my home address, and I'm not having that happen.

Obviously the odd track here and there might go unnoticed as has happened in the past, but linking to OSTs or collections of them? Sorry, please don't, and please don't abuse what I just said by trying to see how far that line extends.

[BUHA]

Soulseek is incredible.

But I don't listen to game music.

[Sly Cherry Chunks]

I know this sounds dumb but what about sprite rips? A lot of people are using them as avatars. Surley this is copywrite theft too?

[The n00b]

I know this sounds dumb but what about sprite rips? A lot of people are using them as avatars. Surley this is copywrite theft too?

That's great, soon some cool avatars will be gone. You guys got anymore requests?

[system11]

I know this sounds dumb but what about sprite rips? A lot of people are using them as avatars. Surley this is copywrite theft too?

That's great, soon some cool avatars will be gone. You guys got anymore requests?

YES - I STAMP ZE NAZI JACKBOOT OF MODSHIP UPON YOUR LITTLE AVATAR!

There's a difference between distributing (now for the sake of argument, add linking to that definition) entire pieces of software or ripped components of them, and a single 64x64 image, usually mangled, or a screenshot. I doubt even EA would pursue one of those, and they eat raw babies for sport.

[Melf]

What's the difference between linking to a few tracks from an OST and posting screen shots in reviews? How is one less shady than the other? What about music for games that never had official soundtracks released or have been out of print for several years?

[Thunder Force]

What's the difference between linking to a few tracks from an OST and posting screen shots in reviews?

Posting a few still screenshots in a review is probably far closer to "fair use" because it is a less significant portion of the complete work. Of course, you'll never get a clear answer to questions like these because the laws differ depending on the country you're reading/posting from.

[howmuchkeefe]

Discussions like this upset me. They remind me of how I might be able to visit Treasure's website, buy Radiant Silvergun and play it on my computer were it not for the freedom-destroying, utter stupidity that is the current state of IP law.

So... Treasure gets no money from me at all for their efforts. Even if I DID drop $150 on an actual copy of RS, Treasure would not see a penny of it. Meanwhile, I can download the game for free any time I like... proving the futility and unqualifiable idiocy of IP law.

Once upon a time, I didn't understand how anyone could buy into the concept of "power for power's sake".

[system11]

Discussions like this upset me. They remind me of how I might be able to visit Treasure's website, buy Radiant Silvergun and play it on my computer were it not for the freedom-destroying, utter stupidity that is the current state of IP law.

No, you can't do that because Treasure offer no mechanism to do so - they made a game, it had a print run, that is all. Whether you can or can't buy it from their site has absolutely nothing at all to do with copyright.

So... Treasure gets no money from me at all for their efforts. Even if I DID drop $150 on an actual copy of RS, Treasure would not see a penny of it. Meanwhile, I can download the game for free any time I like... proving the futility and unqualifiable idiocy of IP law.

So because Treasure decided to make 'x' copies, and you can break copyright law by duplicating one, how does that make copyright idiotic? All it does is make you a pirate and depending on location, lawbreaker. In the above context it's futile in that you're happy to break the law, and the wishes of the makers.

Doesn't anyone ever think of the rights of the people who created something? If I made a game, and I specifically made 666 copies, I'd be pretty pissed if there were 678 a day later.

Sorry dude, you're not making a whole lot of sense.

[Zweihander]

I remember its banishment not being enforced on the old board, but it should've been and I said as much then. There is no logic in rejecting game piracy while simultaneously allowing the piracy of game music.

have fun paying out the ass for an expensive device that will let you rip music from your legally-owned Japanese Super Famicom games, then.

[Accutron]

I remember its banishment not being enforced on the old board, but it should've been and I said as much then. There is no logic in rejecting game piracy while simultaneously allowing the piracy of game music.

have fun paying out the ass for an expensive device that will let you rip music from your legally-owned Japanese Super Famicom games, then.

Yeah, because I don't ever download MP3's, or roms I knew about that soundtrack site two weeks before Stormwatch posted the link, and had already cleaned them out.

As an organization, it is illogical for Shmups Forum to ban roms in an effort to eliminate its legal liability for the unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material, only to turn around and expose itself to that same liability by permitting the distribution of copyrighted soundtracks. Duh. I don't personally give a crap if somebody downloads stuff.

Doesn't anyone ever think of the rights of the people who created something? If I made a game, and I specifically made 666 copies, I'd be pretty pissed if there were 678 a day later.

Indeed. In my experience, the people doing the most moaning about unfair copyright laws have never themselves produced a lick of intellectual property worth protecting.

[Minzoku]

What's the difference between linking to a few tracks from an OST and posting screen shots in reviews? How is one less shady than the other? What about music for games that never had official soundtracks released or have been out of print for several years?

Here is a good article on copyright law. #4 specifically deals about fair use and what is acceptable:

4) "My posting was just fair use!"
See other notes on fair use for a detailed answer, but bear the following in mind:

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's important so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to express other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is usually a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use more of the work than is necessary to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.)


Therefore, posting screenshots in a review is for purposes of criticism [so the reader knows what the author is talking about]. Linking to a pirated OST only serves to hurt the resale value, because a lot of people who wouldn't have been able to hear the tracks otherwise now have a free means of getting what they wanted.

Out of print material is in the air, but in terms of software [specifically], they've been looking at having it become freeware after so much time out of print. Music is still music, though, so it remains under copyright law, regardless of its availability. Look at Beanie Babies: Ty deliberately made certain toys limited run, not because they didn't want to make money, but because they wanted those toys to be special, instead of run-of-the-mill anyone can buy them whenever they want common toys.

You have to visualize it from the creator's point of view, not from, "How can I bypass this law?"

[Now, was my copying of that segment "fair use"? Well, it ought to be, since I posted it for purposes of information, and it's only the relevant segment.]

[benstylus]

In my experience, the people doing the most moaning about unfair copyright laws have never themselves produced a lick of intellectual property worth protecting.

This is probably the most brilliant thing I will read today.

[howmuchkeefe]

Bloodflowers -

No, you can't do that because Treasure offer no mechanism to do so - they made a game, it had a print run, that is all. Whether you can or can't buy it from their site has absolutely nothing at all to do with copyright.

You may be right. I assumed that piracy concerns were the reason such a service doesn't exist, despite the fact that it is technically feasible. It seems obvious to me that it would benefit Treasure to offer such a service to their hopeful consumers.

So because Treasure decided to make 'x' copies, and you can break copyright law by duplicating one, how does that make copyright idiotic? All it does is make you a pirate and depending on location, lawbreaker. In the above context it's futile in that you're happy to break the law, and the wishes of the makers.

If I ever do download a copy of the game, I think that my frame of mind will be a combination of "eager", "sad", and "guilty", in descending order of intensity.

Doesn't anyone ever think of the rights of the people who created something? If I made a game, and I specifically made 666 copies, I'd be pretty pissed if there were 678 a day later

I was thinking that they might be getting more money if RS were available for purchase online. Like I said earlier, I was operating under the belief that RS wasn't available for download due to piracy concerns.

Accutron -

Indeed. In my experience, the people doing the most moaning about unfair copyright laws have never themselves produced a lick of intellectual property worth protecting.

In my experience, neither have most of the people who buy CD players, DVD players, computers and game consoles. I'm not sure what your point is- is it something along the lines of "ignorant consumers don't deserve rights"? Or, merely that they shouldn't be permitted to define the parameters of said rights?

I've known people who wouldn't steal a frikkin' piece of bubble gum who blithely download track after track of music online. I know these people, and they are decent, good people... yet they routinely ignore these laws. I'm thinking that a law which is routinely ignored just might be a law we could do without.

I think the moment IP law stopped punishing only those who SOLD unauthorized copies of the protected material, it started inconveniencing and abusing the public.

[Accutron]

Accutron -

Indeed. In my experience, the people doing the most moaning about unfair copyright laws have never themselves produced a lick of intellectual property worth protecting.

In my experience, neither have most of the people who buy CD players, DVD players, computers and game consoles. I'm not sure what your point is- is it something along the lines of "ignorant consumers don't deserve rights"? Or, merely that they shouldn't be permitted to define the parameters of said rights?

My point is, that once you start producing intellectual property, your perspective on what legal rights you should be granted tends to change. It seems to be difficult for many people to sympathize with someone being robbed of their IP, unless they have been robbed of their own IP in the past.

Just out of curiosity, what rights do you think your 'ignorant consumers' should be granted? The right to just walk into any random artist's or engineer's house and steal whatever IP they happen to have laying around? Or once it's 'out the door' is it just up for grabs? Should designers have to turn their concepts over to the state for broad public distribution?

I've known people who wouldn't steal a frikkin' piece of bubble gum who blithely download track after track of music online. I know these people, and they are decent, good people... yet they routinely ignore these laws. I'm thinking that a law which is routinely ignored just might be a law we could do without.

So we should let the thoughtless and ignorant define IP law out of mob rule? Regardless of what the unwashed masses think, you can steal an idea or a design just as well as you can steal a car. The rights of the minority must be protected, especially when it's a valuable, beneficial minority.

I think the moment IP law stopped punishing only those who SOLD unauthorized copies of the protected material, it started inconveniencing and abusing the public.

Relaxing IP law will only discourage creation for monetary gain. What incentive is there to spend your working hours creating, if there's no guarantee you'll be able to monopolize your creations and put food on the table?

Intellectual property is a valuable, renewable economic resource. The best way to preserve its value is to maintain rigid IP laws that protect the rights of the author, not the consumer. As a consumer, your one inalienable right is the right to choose whether or not to purchase the IP, in the form and duration specified by the author.