6 ms·

I saw this go by and was a bit confused. Normally the way this is done they don't supply the content from the original game you have to provide your own copy wh

I saw this go by and was a bit confused. Normally the way this is done they don't supply the content from the original game you have to provide your own copy which you then mod to use the newer version of the engine. You might need a copy of both the old game and new game to legally have everything you need to produce the modified version. I don't see what claim a copyright holder has against either the user of the mod or developer of the mod. I thought this was one of those first sale doctrine things where once you buy it's yours to use modulo restrictions against redistribution and EULA related things with questionable legality.

mikeash 9y ago
They don’t need a claim, they just need to convince the modders they do, or at least that they’d bankrupt the modders in court anyway.
- Semaphor 9y ago
  Which makes me wonder "Why?" Beth is not exactly mod unfriendly as they pretty much need them to make their games playable.
jerf 9y ago
"I don't see what claim a copyright holder has against either the user of the mod or developer of the mod." I've examined this problem and been keeping track of it for nearly two decades now, keeping an eye out for legal resolution of it, and to the best of my knowledge there is still bupkis on this front legally. Even before we consider EULAs, it is legally quite clear that they could not take the two copyrighted products Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 and distribute the resulting new work. (And what EULA have you ever seen for a AAA game that would explicitly permit that?) It is completely legally unclear whether it is OK to release a tool that the end-user nominally uses to do the work themselves. On the one hand, there are certain arguments that this should be OK; I'm sure in the next few hours a few dozen of these will pour in. (Though I will say the most obvious error they make in general is to grossly overstate the degree of ownership the end-user has over the content, and, again, that's even before considering EULA clauses.) On the other hand, if these arguments are accepted, then it allows a clear path to completely circumvent the aforementioned clear legal result that the end product could not be distributed. This is generally frowned on by the common law legal system, cynical comments to the contrary. It is also in a very real sense arguable that the user, who is putatively putting these two works together, can't really be said to be doing so when the sum total of their contribution is "the user clicked a button"; how can they be said to be responsible? It's pretty obvious that button-clicker can't be said to hold any copyright rights over the result, because "clicked a button" certainly doesn't raise to the level of creative input. It can be easily argued that in a legal sense the program is still the responsibility of the original combinind developer, and that the developer is still as responsible for the output as if they were directly distributing the output, what with the end results being (potentially at least) literally bit-for-bit identical. I remain unaware of even the slightest hint of legal guidance in this area. And please note I'm not in this message trying to advocate either way; I'm simply discussing the situation. (I have opinions, but they are incomprehensible until you first understand that there is a problem at all.)
- taberiand 9y ago
  Surely because the end user bought both games clears things up a bit? If there's no intention of letting the resulting Franken-game off of the PC it's generated on, what outcome beyond more money for the games company could come from that?
  - CWuestefeld 9y ago
    While I don't agree with the argument, perhaps one should look at it the same way as needing to "upgrade" one's license when moving from LP->Cassette->CD, or VHS->DVD->BluRay. In all of these cases, the license to the older media isn't taken as a valid license for the higher-class ones. If you've only paid for a crappy VHS tape, shouldn't there be some additional cost for getting the higher quality and convenience (now without rewinding!) if you want the BluRay? So in this case, the owner of a Fallout 3 game is seeking to have the higher-quality experience from the Fallout 4 engine, but without needing to incur that expense.
    - stordoff 9y ago
      I don't think that's the right comparison. Moving from LP to CD etc. is changing the source format, which loading FO3 assets in FO4 isn't doing. If you bought a better device for playing your media (analogous to the FO4 engine), say a laser turntable or a VHS player that caches the video in memory to facilitate better short-term rewinding/pausing, you wouldn't be expected to re-license the content. (The fact that they are physical products also has _some_ bearing) VHS to DVD etc. is more akin to there being a re-release of FO3 with higher quality textures, and no-one is suggesting that owning the original necessarily entitles you to that.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
      > So in this case, the owner of a Fallout 3 game is seeking to have the higher-quality experience from the Fallout 4 engine, but without needing to incur that expense We are discussing the case of buying both, incurring all the expense.
    - wmil 9y ago
drspacemonkey 9y ago
>Normally the way this is done they don't supply the content from the original game you have to provide your own copy which you then mod to use the newer version of the engine Hell, this is exactly how the Tale of Two Wastelands mod gets the Fallout 3 content into New Vegas. It's not a seamless process, but it's really good. I have to admit, I'm quite saddened by this turn of events.
tinus_hn 9y ago
Its quite questionable indeed but the theory is that to run the game you need to create a copy in your computer memory, and you need permission from the copyright holder to make such a copy. That permission is in the form of a license which would be the EULA and which can limit what you are allowed to do with it, such as only use it in education etc.
- yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
  So what I'm hearing is that it's time to improve execute-in-place support.

mikeash 9y ago

They don’t need a claim, they just need to convince the modders they do, or at least that they’d bankrupt the modders in court anyway.

Semaphor 9y ago
Which makes me wonder "Why?" Beth is not exactly mod unfriendly as they pretty much need them to make their games playable.

jerf 9y ago

"I don't see what claim a copyright holder has against either the user of the mod or developer of the mod." I've examined this problem and been keeping track of it for nearly two decades now, keeping an eye out for legal resolution of it, and to the best of my knowledge there is still bupkis on this front legally. Even before we consider EULAs, it is legally quite clear that they could not take the two copyrighted products Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 and distribute the resulting new work. (And what EULA have you ever seen for a AAA game that would explicitly permit that?) It is completely legally unclear whether it is OK to release a tool that the end-user nominally uses to do the work themselves. On the one hand, there are certain arguments that this should be OK; I'm sure in the next few hours a few dozen of these will pour in. (Though I will say the most obvious error they make in general is to grossly overstate the degree of ownership the end-user has over the content, and, again, that's even before considering EULA clauses.) On the other hand, if these arguments are accepted, then it allows a clear path to completely circumvent the aforementioned clear legal result that the end product could not be distributed. This is generally frowned on by the common law legal system, cynical comments to the contrary. It is also in a very real sense arguable that the user, who is putatively putting these two works together, can't really be said to be doing so when the sum total of their contribution is "the user clicked a button"; how can they be said to be responsible? It's pretty obvious that button-clicker can't be said to hold any copyright rights over the result, because "clicked a button" certainly doesn't raise to the level of creative input. It can be easily argued that in a legal sense the program is still the responsibility of the original combinind developer, and that the developer is still as responsible for the output as if they were directly distributing the output, what with the end results being (potentially at least) literally bit-for-bit identical. I remain unaware of even the slightest hint of legal guidance in this area. And please note I'm not in this message trying to advocate either way; I'm simply discussing the situation. (I have opinions, but they are incomprehensible until you first understand that there is a problem at all.)

taberiand 9y ago
Surely because the end user bought both games clears things up a bit? If there's no intention of letting the resulting Franken-game off of the PC it's generated on, what outcome beyond more money for the games company could come from that?
- CWuestefeld 9y ago
  While I don't agree with the argument, perhaps one should look at it the same way as needing to "upgrade" one's license when moving from LP->Cassette->CD, or VHS->DVD->BluRay. In all of these cases, the license to the older media isn't taken as a valid license for the higher-class ones. If you've only paid for a crappy VHS tape, shouldn't there be some additional cost for getting the higher quality and convenience (now without rewinding!) if you want the BluRay? So in this case, the owner of a Fallout 3 game is seeking to have the higher-quality experience from the Fallout 4 engine, but without needing to incur that expense.
  - stordoff 9y ago
    I don't think that's the right comparison. Moving from LP to CD etc. is changing the source format, which loading FO3 assets in FO4 isn't doing. If you bought a better device for playing your media (analogous to the FO4 engine), say a laser turntable or a VHS player that caches the video in memory to facilitate better short-term rewinding/pausing, you wouldn't be expected to re-license the content. (The fact that they are physical products also has _some_ bearing) VHS to DVD etc. is more akin to there being a re-release of FO3 with higher quality textures, and no-one is suggesting that owning the original necessarily entitles you to that.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
    > So in this case, the owner of a Fallout 3 game is seeking to have the higher-quality experience from the Fallout 4 engine, but without needing to incur that expense We are discussing the case of buying both, incurring all the expense.
  - wmil 9y ago

drspacemonkey 9y ago

>Normally the way this is done they don't supply the content from the original game you have to provide your own copy which you then mod to use the newer version of the engine Hell, this is exactly how the Tale of Two Wastelands mod gets the Fallout 3 content into New Vegas. It's not a seamless process, but it's really good. I have to admit, I'm quite saddened by this turn of events.

tinus_hn 9y ago

Its quite questionable indeed but the theory is that to run the game you need to create a copy in your computer memory, and you need permission from the copyright holder to make such a copy. That permission is in the form of a license which would be the EULA and which can limit what you are allowed to do with it, such as only use it in education etc.

yjftsjthsd-h 9y ago
So what I'm hearing is that it's time to improve execute-in-place support.