About limiting captures of demoscene productions
category: general [glöplog]
@pestis: Might be that making a real-time version of a video is 1000x more work, BUT if you copy colors, direction, pacing etc. it’s not a new artpiece that got enough creation height (does this term exist in the english language?) to be copyrighted by the creator. It’s more like a cover-version.
@gaspode I hope I made it clear that making a real-time version of an movie almost certainly breaks copyright. But I hope we are not arguing about what is the legal status of unauthorized captures or real-time versions of movies? Because my understanding of law is that the answer is pretty clear: they all break copyright.
I thought this thread was mainly about what scene thinks of these captures; not what the law says. These laws probably don't reflect the average scener's moral compass.
Hey, what prod are you specifically alluding to? links plz.
I thought this thread was mainly about what scene thinks of these captures; not what the law says. These laws probably don't reflect the average scener's moral compass.
Hey, what prod are you specifically alluding to? links plz.
Quote:
I hope I made it clear that making a real-time version of an movie almost certainly breaks copyright.
Okay, then we are of the same opinion. Back to topic.
Quote:
I thought this thread was mainly about what scene thinks of these captures; not what the law says. These laws probably don't reflect the average scener's moral compass.
Couldn't agree more.
Quote:
@Defiance: there is https://theartofhardcoding.com/
Really good work and a decent capped.tv successor, I'm eager to see the final and complete version of the site. :)
Quote:
I thought this thread was mainly about what scene thinks of these captures; not what the law says.
Sceners fall back to having to use the law when they get ignored. That's why channels get copyright strikes.
Quote:
Sceners fall back to having to use the law when they get ignored. That's why channels get copyright strikes.
I haven't heard of a legal case between two sceners for a copyright dispute so far, and hope I won't in the future. Also all these years that I had a yt channel with demos I didn't had a single copyright strike (account was in good standing). Even in our soundcloud case, those years ago, things stopped at a PM, not even a copyright strike. Then again I'm more on the copyleft side of the spectrum so... someone could blame this on that.
I remember that some Amiga-demo contained a screen in the beginning about it's inclusion to PD-disks. It's probably not the only one.
and Second Reality has "This demo is freeware. It can be freely distributed without modifications. No money can be charged for it."
Pestis: Yeah, the Leonardo example was a bit silly maybe :) But the thing I mostly got from those messages is that how you kinda lose the production after it's "out there".
I totally get why artists who have poured their heart and soul (and time) into prods don't want them to be defiled, and I kinda understand the urge to use the tool at disposal (DMCA) to prevent that. But also somehow that feels like "too much", you know? I mean would it be okay to make a scene production, entry it to a compo at party, have it added to all the databases and then add a notice to info that oh btw if you show this to anybody without asking me or I'll have my lawyer call you? (if I would have a lawyer in my toolbox)
Of course going from dmca->lawyer is a"slippery slope" argument, and I don't believe it :) but it's a thought experiment. I guess the thing that mostly feels weird about this is the "distribution rights are given to" -list, and then the threat to use law to for people to respect their eula. Just feels so "off" in the demoscene context. Wouldn't something like "broken distribution/copy/capture of this prod are subject to be issued a takedown request" be possible? And oasiz also had a good point.
and Second Reality has "This demo is freeware. It can be freely distributed without modifications. No money can be charged for it."
Pestis: Yeah, the Leonardo example was a bit silly maybe :) But the thing I mostly got from those messages is that how you kinda lose the production after it's "out there".
I totally get why artists who have poured their heart and soul (and time) into prods don't want them to be defiled, and I kinda understand the urge to use the tool at disposal (DMCA) to prevent that. But also somehow that feels like "too much", you know? I mean would it be okay to make a scene production, entry it to a compo at party, have it added to all the databases and then add a notice to info that oh btw if you show this to anybody without asking me or I'll have my lawyer call you? (if I would have a lawyer in my toolbox)
Of course going from dmca->lawyer is a"slippery slope" argument, and I don't believe it :) but it's a thought experiment. I guess the thing that mostly feels weird about this is the "distribution rights are given to" -list, and then the threat to use law to for people to respect their eula. Just feels so "off" in the demoscene context. Wouldn't something like "broken distribution/copy/capture of this prod are subject to be issued a takedown request" be possible? And oasiz also had a good point.
In those days, "PD" meant more "Public Distribution" than "Public Domain".
And the Second Reality license you mentioned clearly states that it is not in the public domain, as it cannot be modified or sold.
And the Second Reality license you mentioned clearly states that it is not in the public domain, as it cannot be modified or sold.
Quote:
Sticking to metaphors, what about having a properly framed high-quality print of one of your show-off pieces on display for free, then somebody sticky-taping a copy of a poorly-lit grainy photo of that piece right next to it, and getting paid for people accidentally looking at it? =)then add a notice to info that oh btw if you show this to anybody without asking me or I'll have my lawyer call you?
Quote:
But also somehow that feels like "too much", you know?
Sure, but then as I said, what else are you supposed to do when someone makes a shitty capture and gets all snippy when you complain about it being wrong?
Quote:
@Defiance: there is https://theartofhardcoding.com/
…which seems to embed YouTube for its videos? :-) Not sure how that is different from any random YouTube channel.
One thing I really liked about capped.tv was that the people encoding seemed to genuinely care about capture and encode quality (e.g. bad captures would be replaced and re-encoded). It's pretty much impossible to beat YouTube for convenience and accessibility, but you _can_ beat it on picture quality, if you're careful with your encodes and want to spend the resources (bits and CPU time).
