pouët.net

What do people think of clausules in nfos limiting people's ability to publish captures of prods? Few groups have had such pleas recently. Some even threating to issue takedown requests for unauthorized captures.

Traditionally the unspoken agreement has been that scene stuff is 'public domain' for people within the scene. Page's Soldier of Fortune cover has been used in 100 productions. 40 in the year after it came out. Routines are studied and improved constantly. (and sometimes ripped too ofc) And demos are freely distributed and shown in demoscene-related events.

I can see why one would add such a clausule, but isn't that kinda against the scene's unwritten rules? Or can the captures be considered to add little artistic value and yet having big non-scene audience that such measures are justified?

Disclaimer: I'm trying not to make this be flamebait, so lets try to keep the conversation civil. :) I'm interested on people's takes on this.

maybe "official capture" (like group x wants it from a real machine) vs "a capture" (scaled to whatever from emu)?

Once spreaded, demos are to be show at demoparties (and this permission is always granted) because that's what is expected in a demoparty... demos. This is the way.

YouTube, on the other hand, is just a shadow. If you wanna show shadows of real things to those who live in the common cave and cannot look directly to the sun, at least search for a good wall in the cave and make a projection that don't become too much distorted. And say to them: "This is a shadow casted from real things, exit this tube-cavern and turn your computer on to see the light... here is the download link".

There are too many shitty captures in YouTube anyway. Bad framerate, wrong aspect-ratio, colors changed, sound channels missing, not synced, missing parts, etc...

Nowadays I try to avoid those pitfalls when I do a capture, but in the past I've commited the sin of making some bad captures (of my own modest stuff, anyway) so I know that doing good ones requires skill and patience and sacrifice of time that are generally not found in your average youtuber, avid of uploading new videos each week.

Yes, I think that bad captures should be taken down ASAP and for good. Distribution on YouTube is not the same as distribution at parties. At parties, we spread the real thing and the scene is glorified. At YouTube, we sin.

I have spoken.

Maybe you could send fuckings to some particularly bad youtubers?

I remember seeing awful captures of Amiga demos on YouTube, namely high-end stuff that I couldn't run on WinUAE then, back in the Noughties, and so I never even thought much of those demos, as the poor quality was so distracting.

But now, I can see all of those same demos on WinUAE and they are transformed by how clear they are, and all consistent in quality. And no, I don't use filters, just pure pixel goodness in 1080p. Slideshows look particularly great.

This claim makes me hope we had "festival circuits" for demos like they do for short films. Demo shows do exist but their program isn't ever published before a party, right? And they sometimes are compressed YouTube captures anyway.


Now I actually want to try WinUAE again as well :) Watching a demo on an emulator does keep one important quality: an element of surprise. In a video capture you practically always know its running time, so for example a "fake ending" becomes harder to pull off.

Of course there ain't seeking either but that just makes it closer to a performance, for better or worse.

I don't have the hardware for the latest PC demos -> Youtube
I have hardware for Amiga, C64 and Atari ST, but I'm lazy -> Youtube

I don't understand the fuzz.

agree .. just have some "ancient" PC hardware, but I'm interested in all kind of prods on all platforms .. whether youtube or an emulator probably makes no difference at all .. in case anyone is worried about the video capture quality of their prods, just capture yourself, then no one else has to do it with the risk of poor quality ..

See this is what bugs me - why am I, as a maker of the demo, forced to create a capture as soon as possible, knowing that if I don't, there's gonna be a broken capture in place of it? (And sometimes even so.)

Add to the mix that now on YT you can't even tell anymore if a channel is monetized or not (because everything has ads), i.e. if their arrogance reaches heights to think that they're entitled for compensation for their "effort", and you're starting to see the frustration.

I might be wrong, but I think that monetized channels has ad breaks in the middle of the video.
Never seen a channel with demos having ad breaks.

That's because demos are typically shorter than 8 minutes. Most of them wouldn't qualify even if the channel is monetized.

Ah. Ok.

@Gargaj .. no one wants to force you, just like a manufacturer is not forced to advertise or an artist to make exhibitions ... but if you want to reach or inspire as wide an audience as possible, there is no way around making videos and accepting the media break ... I personally can not see a variety of certainly excellent demos and give feedback, because I do not have the hardware ... if it's like many, it's ultimately a pity for the effort and the possibly low recognition of performance ..

But you are forcing me if there's an implicit understanding that "your demo WILL be captured, it will be on someone else's channel, maybe monetized, and chances are it will be in an awful state, unless you do it yourself".

On a higher level, what if popularity for me is not as important as the work being contextualized and presented accurately? When does the artist's intention get priority over the audience's demands?

Ofcourse it also depends on the (general) rules of the party where the demo is released.

Parties should check there rules and where needed make them more clear on this topic. If it waa only to protect the live streaming. But also about the public spreading after the party by the organizers. Usually eveeyrhing ends up at scene.org. A digital version of the demo is mandatory to compete?

I think a message in the info file would be a good start. Like, please contact us here before publishing your video capture, or please give us X days after release to make a capture, or only X and Y are permitted to make a video capture. It's more of an honor system, but there's no need for party organizing to get involved unless they state in the compo rules that direct video captures will be released (and usually they publish the whole compo anyway, not individual entries).

If you want to get a little more serious about it, maybe include a message at the beginning of the demo itself. It could be like those PD/shareware publisher warnings at the start of early 90s Amiga demos.

As an organiser of Gerp I feel that we might have to clarify in the rules that if a demo is released at our party it must be released as public domain or at least at some level of CC, if this will be a trend.

But that also withholds that all material used in the production, down to every pixel and sample, is 100% made by the author. I don't think we want to go that road, do we?

Note, this is only my thoughts, and I can't speak for the rest of the Gerp crew.

Demos with EULAs is a thing now? What have the world come to?

the former cracker and warez scene now demands respect for their copyright :)

@D vibe

One could argue about this Gerp rule:
“All entries must be previously unreleased and will be spread in public after the party”

“Spread in public” is not something Gerp did.
Also “Spread in public” looking at all other parties around for years means
Providing a digital download. (for example at scene.org in the folder
Of the party itself.

How is Gerp going to re rewrite this rule to be absolutely clear for next year?

Most of currently active demoscene defo ain't / weren't crackers, so trying to hold this against them is a bit pointless.

Also, warez scene was all about respect... There were so many rules how you were supposed to behave to stay in the inner circle...

Claims that individual's should be able to spread whatever data and that copyrights should be respected are compatible as such.



Has any party actually demanded that products should be released as public domain while understanding what does it mean?

(It means that those releases can be used in commercial products by third parties without any restrictions like you can use Vivaldi's compositions)

Demanding productions to be released into the public domain is a silly idea, even more so if this enforced by any party.

Certain terms of use coming with a production are nothing new at all. The authors hold their copyright, and their wishes shall be respected. Written rules trump unwritten rules, whatever the latter may be deemed to be.

If any potential party rules collide with the wishes of the authors, why, they'll simply go for another venue or even entirely different mode of publication altogether.

The consumers, as it were, cannot demand anything from a piece of work for which they have paid nothing. It remains non-commercial, after all.

Public Domain doesn't really exist as such, at least in European laws. It's not possible to waive your moral rights to a production. The closest you can get to PD are licenses like CC0, 0BSD, etc.