Event pokemon.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Hackers using unreleased on-disc Street Fighter X Tekken DLC in online play
- Thread starter subversus
- Start date
Event pokemon.
Event pokemon are like promotions for watching a pokemon movie. essentially they are selling movie tickets.
They're still not selling them and they're not even available outside Japan (and you can access it if someone duplcate it for you or something) and to finally if that wasn't available the kids would still have come anyway.
And Datel tried at the release of the ps2 to sell codes for their gamegenie or whathaveyou (and pretty useless they were with the rise of gfaqs).
Which is why I flagged up the importance of the paywall. Once something's clearly delineated as a 'separate product', I think that does change the status of the transaction.
HyperBitHero
Member
Ha!
They're doing it for free. That's other than what was intended. They have created a derivative product for personal use - using more data that is also under copyright.
And again, we go back to: Is the product which changes hands in the shop the *disc* or the *game*? That's an extremely important question, and I feel that it *ought* to be the game.
Other than 'it was on the disc', why do you believe you've already 'bought' the DLC? At what point did you make a transaction which resulted in you believing you owned the DLC?
You could argue that the single most fundamental form of DRM is not giving the person the content in the first place!
You bought the disc. Manipulating things to get more of what's on the disc isn't unethical or immoral in any way- in the old days it was called modding.
It crosses the line when you download Capcom-created stuff that you didn't purchase. (such as the content on the disc itself)
It crosses the line when you download Capcom-created stuff that you didn't purchase. (such as the content on the disc itself)
blitzcloud
Banned
So if rockstar said that in 50 years, when society is ready, they'd unlock the hot coffee stuff as DLC, it would be a separate product and modding the game would be less legal?
Unfortunately for you, the "derivative works" rule is also part of copyright law. EULAs are often bullshit, but that's an actual legal fact.
Is the argument for 'it's on the disc, therefore I own it' the same argument that says that cracked software is okay, because it's already on your hardware?
I don't like how gouging DLC is, but as far as I'm concerned the PS3/360 could reasonably come pre-loaded full of game/DLC data if it meant I didn't have to download it.
The only sad part is how flimsy this is for future proofing. It's a pain to play Samba De Amigo on the Dreamcast as lots of the tracks relied on downloading unlock keys, and if you don't have a working VMU with that file you're out of luck.
I don't like how gouging DLC is, but as far as I'm concerned the PS3/360 could reasonably come pre-loaded full of game/DLC data if it meant I didn't have to download it.
The only sad part is how flimsy this is for future proofing. It's a pain to play Samba De Amigo on the Dreamcast as lots of the tracks relied on downloading unlock keys, and if you don't have a working VMU with that file you're out of luck.
Wait what?
I dont understand. You can change and modify stuff you own as much as you like (bar the provisions set in the DMCA if that piece of legislation applies to you, or the EULA if the EULA applies to you). You just cannot distribute it. Changing a few lines in your own ini file does not constitute distributing a derivative work.
If there is no unlawful copying/distribution, there is no copyright violation.
The fact that they may occasionally mesh with the law in an accurate fashion does not preclude the fact that much of the content of them is bullshit.
The pig didn't fly far I guess :lol
Except:
That only talks about the right to *create*, not the right to *distribute*.http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ14.pdf said:
If you install a 30 day trial of Photoshop or Windows you have that 'content' on the disc (or on the hard-drive, in some cases). The content is locked behind a paywall. Much like SFxTekken DLC.
Kinda different I mean you're not using an exploit to unlock the content.
Your analogy works better if we're talking about demo version of games downloaded on psn or something.
You didn't pay to get the promotional version of Windows or Photoshop (and the companies enforce their rights mostly on other companies since students and the like use the pirated version for training that they can leverage on other businesses).
Alx
Member
It's really a battle of semantics. Modding used to be a creative process, you tinker with the game to add something else.
In the current situation, you're tinkering with the software to get free access to something that you're supposed to pay for. You can argue if it is legal or not, but you can't call it ethical.
PrinceOfApathy
Banned
You already failed the entire argument, because you don't pay for the trial version of Photoshop.
Why should that be relevant?
(Also: if it's on a covermount CD on a magazine, have you then 'paid for it'?)
If the separation isn't enforced in a significant manner (ie just flipping some flags enables the "DLC") it can be legally argued it's not a separate product, ie here because of the simplicity of the procedure the paywall isn't technically a wall at all.
Derivative work has to be "an original work of authorship". So it doesn't apply to unlocking content. If it had been incomplete data that needed extensive work to create functional characters it'd be another matter, but here it's just a matter of flipping some flags.
You go to the store, you buy the game, nobody makes you sign anything at all. You buy the disc, you can throw it out of the window, burn it, crack it, do whatever you want with it. If Capcom doesn't like the idea, fuck them.
You say Capcom is not wrong? How could you? He's wrong on so many levels I can't understand how people can't see it. Don't you realise you're accepting you need to pay for rights on things you already purchased? WTF, I mean, WTF, how could you accept such twisted argument in the first place?
The only objective thing is that the product they're selling is a disc that contains a game, thus you can do whatever you want with your purchase.
Everytime I take a look around, I see 1984 is not so far away.
Okay, here's a 'better' analogy for those that are incredibly hung-up on the initial payment.
I use 'Unity' to develop games. When I bought it in 2008 there was 'Unity Indie' and 'Unity Pro'. Unity indie was $100*, and came with a 30 day trial for 'Unity Pro' ($1000+). If I wanted to continue to use the pro features I had to pay the extra license fee. That code and content was on my machine, I was just locked out.
*Unity has since changed its model so that Unity Indie is free, but I don't think this invalidates my analogy.
Also, many iOS downloadable games have all the features in the code-base, but require you to pay extra to unlock them. They're often not downloading anything, just checking for authentication.
I use 'Unity' to develop games. When I bought it in 2008 there was 'Unity Indie' and 'Unity Pro'. Unity indie was $100*, and came with a 30 day trial for 'Unity Pro' ($1000+). If I wanted to continue to use the pro features I had to pay the extra license fee. That code and content was on my machine, I was just locked out.
*Unity has since changed its model so that Unity Indie is free, but I don't think this invalidates my analogy.
Also, many iOS downloadable games have all the features in the code-base, but require you to pay extra to unlock them. They're often not downloading anything, just checking for authentication.
Riposte
Member
Why don't people just buy it used ("like new")? Maybe buy the DLC/license in a few months if you can stomach giving Capcom 20 dollars after giving them none for the game (that's probably what they are betting on, I bet fighting games get returned like crazy).
Anyone else feel like all of this drama amounts to a sideshow compared to actually playing the game? It's a good game.
hahaha
EDIT: All of this saltiness will go away once we finally switch to DD. For better or worse.
Anyone else feel like all of this drama amounts to a sideshow compared to actually playing the game? It's a good game.
hahaha
EDIT: All of this saltiness will go away once we finally switch to DD. For better or worse.
Is doing Kaz's infinite also illegal then, given that it's not intended?
Bonus question: What if his infinite was supposed to be unlocked via a DLC code and the fact that you can do it without it is a glitch?
If someone used a Gameshark to unlock these DLC chars would that be illegal? Note that in the original console release(s?) of SF2 it was possible to play as the bosses use a Gameshark IIRC. Also illegal and unethical?
Obviously this is a question of gradation but when you put all the content on the disc and don't put any real effort into protecting it I find it hard to feel really bad when people find simple ways to access it. At some point it's like writing out a esecretay essagemay in igpay atinlay and getting hot and bothered when people crack it.
By the way, you are not allowed to descramble the above without paying me $5, and you don't agree with that must immediately stop reading right now.
If you got this far you agreed and probably owe me $5.
MMaRsu
Member
Loooooooool. What is their purpose then, dress up?
not psycho
Member
One danger of DLC is that they might decide to hold back some of the characters who would have been in the original release if DLC didn't exist to make the DLC more appealing. Thus the original release will be worse, and we'll have to wait unnecessary long for the characters we want. Luckily this hasn't happened yet, but eventually they'll think of it.
Another concern is that DLC allows for confusing price structures which don't need to be revealed until well after the original release. That means we will have a diminished ability to make an informed choice, which is never good. Again... just because they haven't thought of this yet, doesn't mean it won't happen.
The comparison to shareware is apt. There is nothing inherently immoral about selling major retail games as shareware. The only thing that makes this somewhat different is that with shareware you know the terms up front, while with DLC they can hide the true terms from you. Whether that difference makes it ok to use the DLC without paying I'm not sure.
Another concern is that DLC allows for confusing price structures which don't need to be revealed until well after the original release. That means we will have a diminished ability to make an informed choice, which is never good. Again... just because they haven't thought of this yet, doesn't mean it won't happen.
The comparison to shareware is apt. There is nothing inherently immoral about selling major retail games as shareware. The only thing that makes this somewhat different is that with shareware you know the terms up front, while with DLC they can hide the true terms from you. Whether that difference makes it ok to use the DLC without paying I'm not sure.
McBradders
NeoGAF: my new HOME
The real issue is why this stuff is being held back until November.
It's inexcusable, Sony moneyhatting or not. Capcom should be able to be more agile to circumnavigate this stuff, there is already a huge demand from players to get this shit in their hands as soon as possible.
This seems, on the surface at least, that it is just blowing up in Capcom's face at every single turn.
It's inexcusable, Sony moneyhatting or not. Capcom should be able to be more agile to circumnavigate this stuff, there is already a huge demand from players to get this shit in their hands as soon as possible.
This seems, on the surface at least, that it is just blowing up in Capcom's face at every single turn.
Zoe
Member
Not sure about Live, but I'm pretty sure there's something about modding in the PS ToS.
Is going online with the content not distribution?
Good point.
Just consider this: someone using GeckoOS on Wii to unlock hidden content directly (like Game Genie). Now you COULD say that theoretically someone unlocks the characters not knowing that he was considered to pay for them. I mean maybe they were meant to get unlocked by playing 1000 matches etc. Can anyone be sure? (besides Capcom saying that it was DLC content). Would such person also be doing illegal things? In that case, Game Genie itself (and such software) would be totally illegal, because you did something the developer didn't want you to do (in other games, he wanted you to play 1000 matches instead).
Also what about Super Smash Bros Brawl? The full ROMs of some games are on there and you are supposed to unlock them. Is it illegal, that you unlock them directly? And what about removing the time limit in the emulator of those games? Are both illegal? Is only one of them illegal? Who decides that? And if there was a bug in the emulator, that triggers the time limit to go away, would triggering that bug be illegal?
Edit: Well, I really ballsed up that quoting. Now fixed.
Actually:
Capcom argues that "Game" and "Game with DLC accessible" are two distinct products. By that token,"Game with DLC accessible" is clearly a derivative work of "Game".
You, on the other hand, are asserting that they're the *same* product, by virtue of the fact that both products are distributed on the same disc.
Once again, the argument boils down to an attachment to the physical product in a debate about virtual products. I would argue that the attachment to the physical product is a problem, it is counter to a natural understanding of the transaction which takes place, and it should therefore not be regarded as a factor in a discussion about the nature of copyright infringement.
I would argue that it is instead a game that is distributed on a disc. And I would also argue that that's a significant distinction.
Actually:
(http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html)
Capcom argues that "Game" and "Game with DLC accessible" are two distinct products. By that token,"Game with DLC accessible" is clearly a derivative work of "Game".
You, on the other hand, are asserting that they're the *same* product, by virtue of the fact that both products are distributed on the same disc.
Once again, the argument boils down to an attachment to the physical product in a debate about virtual products. I would argue that the attachment to the physical product is a problem, it is counter to a natural understanding of the transaction which takes place, and it should therefore not be regarded as a factor in a discussion about the nature of copyright infringement.
I would argue that it is instead a game that is distributed on a disc. And I would also argue that that's a significant distinction.
Well, no. A lot of publishers would like it to be this way but in practice EULAs can easily be judged as non-binding and it's entirely on a case-by-case basis.
Except it's not a new version. It's the exact same piece of software with a small amount of configuration data altered. Changing your screen settings won't constitute a derivative work, creating a save game won't configure a derivative work, even patching the saved game to produce a situation that can't happen in-game won't. Same thing here.
Zoe
Member
You're transferring that content during the match.
Actually no, no content moves from one machine to another during a match, only a description of gameplay (specifically, inputs and some state checks), ie simplifying a lot you're basically plugging your controller on your opponent's machine over the net and then it's all based on how the game is deterministic and the same input will always produce the same outputs on both machines (and then the whole science of netcode is about dealing with how you always get the input too late and/or incorrectly). That's why all players need to have the same data in the first place.
It's not hacking but can't you use the Skylanders characters without even opening the box? That seems kinda sketchy.
Case opinions
manufacturer of product that allowed users to alter codes transmitted between video gaming console and game cartridge did not infringe console manufacturers exclusive right, under federal copyright law, to create derivative works
Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc. v. Nintendo of America, Inc. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 1992) was a court case which established the rights of users to modify copyrighted works for their own use.[1]
Under license from UK company Codemasters, Galoob manufactured an add-on product called Game Genie, which allowed users to modify video games by entering in certain codes; for example, a code might make the player invincible by negating the programming that updates the player's health amount. Nintendo, which sold a video game system and video games that could be modified by Game Genie, sued Galoob for copyright infringement, alleging that Game Genie made a derivative work, violating Nintendo's copyright in their video games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.
Should be applicable. Don't know if it's been discussed earlier in the thread though. These big threads have a tendency to infringe on content presented in the early stages of the thread
From this upset, it seems that the following are generally true:
- People are not okay with day 1 DLC to access the extra content.
- People are not okay with 'DLC' files left on the disc.
- People are okay with optional 'special edition' versions of discs, with extra content.
- People are okay with paying for DLC so long as it downloads all files, and is released later.
- People are okay with 'IAP' paying to unlock coins and items in iOS games, which is included with every copy of the game.
- People are okay with trial versions of games locking out gameplay after time, or requiring a paid unlock.
These are all pretty much the same thing. Paying extra for content that was budgeted and developed as part of the product cycle.
- People are not okay with day 1 DLC to access the extra content.
- People are not okay with 'DLC' files left on the disc.
- People are okay with optional 'special edition' versions of discs, with extra content.
- People are okay with paying for DLC so long as it downloads all files, and is released later.
- People are okay with 'IAP' paying to unlock coins and items in iOS games, which is included with every copy of the game.
- People are okay with trial versions of games locking out gameplay after time, or requiring a paid unlock.
These are all pretty much the same thing. Paying extra for content that was budgeted and developed as part of the product cycle.
So, let's just assume that they did what some people here suggest; that they instead developed these twelve characters over a period after the release of the game, and released it as a separate download, with a (large) patch adding the content to the original version for non-purchasers to play against the new characters.
At that point, is there anything different in *that* situation which would mean that your exact same argument isn't true?
By that same token, if I hacked LBP to allow me to place a Paintinator without purchasing the MGS pack, would I be within my rights?
And independent of *would* I be within my rights... *should* I be within my rights?
The only way this blows up in their face is people stop buying Capcom games, which just isn't going to happen.
At the very least, Capcom will hold this back until PC edition comes out, maybe cyncially expecting folks to double dip.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc.
Should be applicable. Don't know if it's been discussed earlier in the thread though. These big threads have a tendency to infringe on content presented in the early stages of the thread
It has. The question is whether using the game genie to integrate the data from a *separate virtual product* still constitutes fair use on the *original* product.
GTA's hot coffee told us that if the content is on the purchased disc... then its a part of the user's experience... rather they have "access" to it or not.