Battlezone Forums

§ 117. Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. — Not withstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

US law doesn't apply to me regardless.

Ah but WIPO does...

Correction, only the legal copyright holder or their authorized representitives makes a patch, this is done shortly after commercial release. Ken is a former developer of Activision and has no authorization to make a legal patch.

Use of Activision code was acquired through the violation of the NDA and was never open sourced. The code was sent to me via a 3rd party, after which i sent it to Ken.

An example of an unofficial patch would be Bz2 1.2 as it was an authorized patch which didn't become official due to not passing QA standards.

A patch is designed, produced, tested and distributed but the copyright holder and authorized agents for profit.

A community made mod is not.

Please keep in mind the license conditions especially:
* New Game Materials must not contain any illegal, obscene or defamatory materials, materials that infringe rights of privacy and publicity of third parties or (without appropriate irrevocable licenses granted specifically for that purpose) any trademarks, copyright-protected works or other properties of third parties.
* New Game Materials must contain prominent identification at least in any on-line description and with reasonable duration on the opening screen: (a) the name and E-mail address of the New Game Materials' creator(s) and (b) the words "THIS MATERIAL IS NOT MADE OR SUPPORTED BY ACTIVISION."
* You will not use the Level Editor to reverse engineer, extract source code, modify, decompile or disassemble the Program, in whole or in part

Apollo wrote:Correction, only the legal copyright holder or their authorized representitives makes a patch, this is done shortly after commercial release. Ken is a former developer of Activision and has no authorization to make a legal patch.

Use of Activision code was acquired through the violation of the NDA and was never open sourced. The code was sent to me via a 3rd party, after which i sent it to Ken.

An example of an unofficial patch would be Bz2 1.2 as it was an authorized patch which didn't become official due to not passing QA standards.

A patch is designed, produced, tested and distributed but the copyright holder and authorized agents for profit.

A community made mod is not.

Please keep in mind the license conditions especially:
* New Game Materials must not contain any illegal, obscene or defamatory materials, materials that infringe rights of privacy and publicity of third parties or (without appropriate irrevocable licenses granted specifically for that purpose) any trademarks, copyright-protected works or other properties of third parties.
* New Game Materials must contain prominent identification at least in any on-line description and with reasonable duration on the opening screen: (a) the name and E-mail address of the New Game Materials' creator(s) and (b) the words "THIS MATERIAL IS NOT MADE OR SUPPORTED BY ACTIVISION."
* You will not use the Level Editor to reverse engineer, extract source code, modify, decompile or disassemble the Program, in whole or in part

Pretty much what I was going to say.

WIPO (WCT, whatever else it gets called) doesn't directly outlaw such things. There have also been a number of court cases in the EU (including Britain) where EULAs were ruled not legally binding. Over here, terms have to be agreed on point of sale, not on installing the product.



1.2 was neither released nor approved by Activision; analogically, under the same conditions as BZ1.5. by your logic, it's therefore a mod. You've just said that on the last page.

That quote there pertains solely to the level editor (which it states explicitly). Ken isn't using the editor (invalidating that part of the license). He also isn't making "new game materials", hes working on what the game already has. Activision can come down and tell him to stop, but (read this bit through twice) they have no legal right to and he has no obligation to obey.

Review the Autodesk court case on software licenses in America.

You can claim the copyright holder has no rights but here the right is 90 years.

Do you really think your statement will sway a Judge in a court of law?

Ken is not facilitating piracy; no-cd patches are legal if you own the game, as shown by the first post in this page.

The only way having 1.5 would be illegal is if somebody who had not paid for the game downloaded it; even then, it is not Ken's fault that they pirated a copy (likely from an installer downloaded from one of two particular websites) and it is thus not his problem.

Ahadley, you should read and understand the posts before replying to them cause you skiped a lot.

Did do. Still can't see it.

Ahadley, you should read and understand the posts before replying to them cause you skiped a lot.

Could someone give a brief and accurate description of what this is all about (or 2 probably) because I have no idea at all.

Discussing whether 1.5 is a patch or a mod, and stemming from that, whether it is legal or not (mainly with regards to its no-cd component).

changes to assets makes it a mod

any changes to compiled code and it becomes a patch.

modify both and you have...a pad? a pod? a match?

Eddy wrote:...

Eddy, DMCA only covers if an anti-copying mechanisms such as encryption was implemented. After the government gave us access to encryption and decryption under the Right to Bear Arms, the media industries realized that they couldn't use the encryption to protect their IP unless they had a law to make decryption illegal. The fact here is that the type of CD-requirement used for BZ1 and BZ2 is not an encryption, it is a binary switch in the EXE. Such a thing is not covered by the DMCA.

I know this **** pretty damn well, I am a programmer after all, I've had multiple classes on it.

Selectively picking case law is generally in poor taste. When it comes to copyright and digital media, you can find a case in your favor no matter what your view is. The fact is early cases were quite backward but this case law was later reverse with new case law or new laws.

Red Devil wrote:changes to assets makes it a mod

any changes to compiled code and it becomes a patch.

modify both and you have...a pad? a pod? a match?

At the most basic level, yes, however, what type of patch sometimes comes into play. Look at the Rock Patch for Red Alert 2. It is a community made patch that does code edits, quite rude ones considering how it was made. Also, sometimes developers make mods. Look at the entire Source Engine lineup. In the end Community Patch vs Mod is based on the content inside. Official Patch vs Patch in general vs Mod comes into play if the developer makes it.

The fact is this entire debate is probably based on some agenda rather than actual facts. Even if Ken was to come in here and say once and for all if its legal or not, let alone the mod/patch thing, he wouldn't be believed, and he has worked in the industry.



@Apollo
And the thing about patches and legality is based on patches that the publisher must provide support for, not patches in general. Legally, I could make a patch for BZ, granted it wouldn't be much of a patch, and if I added too much extra content it becomes a mod.

I think "rebuild" would be more accurate. Its legality would almost certainly depend on where this was challenged. Personally I doubt that most courts would be willing to rule against Ken having some Intellectual Property rights.
This is a bit like some fans of a band arguing over wether the drummer has a right to perform his old defunct bands numbers, claiming that the old bands Manager, who couldn't care less, actually owns the IP rights.
Enjoy the gig, who's round is it?

I was talking about copyright protection systems, not encryption. Yes encryption is one type of copyright protection but so is the CD check. By removing the CD check, you are violating section 102 where it states

"(A) to ‘circumvent a technological measure’ means to
descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work,
or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair
a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright
owner..."

The language is pretty clear that it is not just encryption. Here's the link to the document - http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl105-304.pdf

There are clearly defined exceptions that allow circumvention, primarily to make a personal copy but also for testing the security, for preservation, but downloading a patch that removes the CD check so you can play a game without the CD would not be exempted.

Eddy