Psychedelic Rhino wrote:
It's "cheating" when YOU can do it and the other guy can not. Or a mutual agreement on a standard of engagement and one party reneges. The rest of your post is a discussion of balance. Which, by the way, BZE attempts to address with the BZ2-ish ships.
"Flying" in was removed from BZ2 with 1.3 because it was a bug and considered cheating. Everybody could do it. It was still cheating.
Psychedelic Rhino wrote:And by the way, in regard to 'pirating', both BZ1.5 and BZE are doing it. Don't fool yourself, neither mod requires the use of the CD, and last I heard, neither had the blessing of the IP holder. But the reason you've never heard me mention it is because it's ridiculous to discuss it. Sort of like eating a grape in the produce section in the grocery store. Yes, technically you are shoplifting. And the ramifications to whoever holds to the IP to Battlezone has about the same concern that 15 or 25 guys play a mod without the CD
Pirating would require distribution of the full game. No-cd cracks are legal under law in both our countries if you already own the program, don't try to pull that. It doesn't matter in the slightest what Activison "consider" piracy if it is not legally so.
Wow, I missed he had said that. PR, that is so entirely wrong.
First of all, the disk is meaningless. What matters is the license that came with the disk. This is the same reason why personal backups are allowed so long as you maintain sole ownership of your license, and why if you transfer the license to another, you must destroy any of these copies.
1.5 requires you have a license for the game Battlezone (PC) to play. BzE is a mod bundled with an engine. This engine is, or is derived from that which is, not the property of the creator(s) of BzE. This means that unless permission was attained, BzE is illegal soley in that is contained said engine. However, it has this permission. If BzE was to not have this permission, but require to be installed on top of an existing BZ installation, it would again be legal.
Interestingly, modifying the engine is likely against the EULA, but such a case has never gone to trial and is not covered explicitly by any law. In fact, in Europe, EULA cases have been thrown out of court because an I Agree button does not equate to a signature and they are my legal definition to be handled as contracts.
This is irrelevant to the patch vs mod discussion.
Official Patch - A patch that the publisher will give support for.
Patch - That which fixes programming errors or balance.
Community Patch - That which fixes balance and is created by the community.
Mod - That which adds content and is created to be a separate entity, may also include a community patch inside.
1.5 is a patch, though not official, and not a community patch.
BzE is a mod, it adds content and contains a community patch. The fact that it also fixes coding errors is irrelevant because it was not created by a developer of the base game.
The publisher is entirely irrelevant except when it comes to support, specifically, what they will and what they will not support, and in legal speak, what they are obligated by law to support.
This is why BZ2 1.2 is a beta patch, so that the publisher does not need to give support. By your arguments, BZ2's 1.2 is a mod. By mine, it is a patch, as is BZ1's 1.5.
Last edited by Nielk1 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Psychedelic Rhino wrote:So. . .you're saying the IP holder has no say in the matter on BZ1.5?
They can request that it stop, they can try to force it to stop, but legally, they can't.
However, they can probably revoke Ken's access to the source code because of the contract he had with them. This would mean he could no longer produce 1.5, but all existing copies would remain legal.
Basically, the power they have over Ken from contract is stronger then they have over us from EULAs. But they have no legal means outside of this contract to do anything.
Last edited by Nielk1 on Mon Jun 25, 2012 12:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
As I said, they have no legal recourse other than contract to stop the creation of a patch or mod (unless you count EULAs, but, as I said they have no legal standing).
Further more, you are implying that I would have to school 'them' on legalities implying that they would do something different, however, you are creating a hypothetical situation that is based on the assumption I am wrong. In fact, I would never have to tell them this, because this is what they already know.
You are implying that some person who has given you information on the subject has in fact interfaced with them, which is most definitely not the case simply because you are wrong. However, if this is the case, it was simply a case of scare tactics and it would not hold up in the court of law. In fact, it would never be heard by a court.
EDIT:
I was having trouble identifying your argument as straw-man because it was creating a hypothetical rather than misrepresenting my argument, however, after further thought I have determined that yes, it fits the definition. I thought you better than such fallacies.
There's no 'straw man'. And no I do not want BZ1.5 and BZE to stop. I actually play one of them.
I said they are pirated in its use and it's mods. Then described why. You can fold and twist the issue all you want.
The plus side here is, since you are confident to all on the forum and those who play the game in your legal certainty, we should throw it to the IP holder so we all know for certain there's no issue, and push BZ1.5 and BZE exposure to a whole new level, somewhat like Bionite is doing.
Spock need not argue the point of BzE legality, it is moot, we both know BzE and Bz1.5 and all other 1.4 versions not from the publisher are in the same boat. His point in doing so was to spread propaganda about BzE (he even made a fake BzE installer altered not to work)
Both BzE and Bz 1.5 are Community made, both use fixes and modding and both came from the same origins. We already have permission from Activision to distribute copies as that is implied by "No restrictions so long as money isn't involved." if for any reason they revoke that they can send a C & D order which Spock and I would not obey.
FYI BzE is not the full game, almost all of it is not retail files. BzE is a stand alone expansion under development, Bz1.5 is a total overhaul mod in development made to replace the game.
We actually replaced the official 1.4 patch with the 1.3 code base back in 2007 and called it 1.4. (this was to get everyone used to the code base we had to work with... )
Activision anet servers for all legacy anet games: Anet Servers
BattleZone Club (Supporting BattleZone 1.4, The Red Odyssey, BattleZone Enhanced, BattleZone 1.5 and Bionite) BattleZone 1 Community Since 2002
As I said, whether it is considered pirated or not, Activision could give a crap, so it's moot either way.
To believe BZ 1.5 is a patch is beyond me, since the changes are extensive and basic game-play aspects have been altered.
My mistake was I almost got goaded ('war', 'straw man', 'I thought you better', etc) into bickering about non-consequential issues with those who have shown in the past, numerous times, are willing and eager, to push it to the point of getting threads locked.
Sometimes gameplay alterations MAKE a patch a patch. Crysis warhead had some issue with being able to fly (flying, yes. Except instead of a ship, it was a dude). I don't think they took that out, but if they did it would be patching unintended and broken code. If original Tribes took away skiing, it would alter gameplay and still be a patch.
Unless the designers specifically meant for the sasquatch to miss half the things it shot at as a feature for the pacifist demographic, then it needed patched. Nobody is going to try to use it like you did in the video hitting two targets at once at an extremely specific distance and angle (heh). If they do, more power to them because sasquatch was one of if not the worst balanced ships in bz1 to the point of utter disuse. A mod would be to give it 2 more cannons on an upper rack which shot SP stabbers for a total of 4 weapons.
Obviously bb1 never played assman in a walker, you would have saw a skilled walker player prove it's not useless.
Many such gameplay changes have been made likewise bugs not fixed.
If it's not broke, don't fix it. (unless ofc it's a mod)
Activision anet servers for all legacy anet games: Anet Servers
BattleZone Club (Supporting BattleZone 1.4, The Red Odyssey, BattleZone Enhanced, BattleZone 1.5 and Bionite) BattleZone 1 Community Since 2002
Definition of a Patch: An upgrade or newer version of the game's source EXE file and any code/files applied that is released by the developers in the interest of updating the game.
Patches DO alter the "gameplay" often. Look at almost all MMO's, all the people that ever complain about gameplay changes that patches make.
MODS are made by COMMUNITY members, and do NOT change the EXE file or source code. They only add new game content/files, used by the original EXE.
Learn, Accept it, Deal with it. Stop being ignorant and stop being stubborn.
Some people get confused about the difference between "official" and "unofficial". Just because a patch is not official, does not mean it isn't a patch. It's merely the legal status of the patch, usually determined by the technical support and warranty offered by the original game's developers (being in BZ's case, ZERO).
Some games that have open source (BZ1?) have mods that have changes to the EXE file source code done by COMMUNITY MEMBERS. (BZE). These are usually referred to as Open Source mods, but they are still MODS.
The only person who can release a PATCH is a member of the original game's DEVELOPERS. (Ken Miller for BZ1)
Patch vs Mod is splitting hairs in this case. Part of the debate comes from arguments many years ago about "preserving" BZ1.4 before 1.5 came along. And as you can guess, one person's patch is another person's mod.
As to the legality of bypassing copyright protection. According to DMCA, it is illegal but for the following exception:
Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law. (A new exemption in 2010.)
It doesn't matter if you have a valid license for a game, the act of bypassing copyright protection for any other purpose than to make a personal copy is illegal per the DMCA. The same is true for downloading a copy of a game that you already own. One can rationalize it many different ways - not for profit, abandonware, the IP owner doesn't care, etc. That doesn't change the law.
Eddy
Last edited by Eddy on Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
