6 ms·

Good Quality DOSBox Video Capture

49 points by headalgorithm 6y ago

bawolff 6y ago
> By the way, I have donated these images above to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license: Not how copyright works. The author of the post is not the copyright holder of the screenshots (in the usa). They are either inelligible (simple commandline interfaces), or the aurhor of the computer program being screenshoted is the copyright holder. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots
- hashtagmarkup 6y ago
  Then why isn't every twitch streamer in jail?
  - bawolff 6y ago
    For starters because copyright infringement doesn't carry jail sentences (unless the work is worth more than $2500, and you do it for intentional financial gain IANAL. Edit: i misunderstood this part slightly. Its an OR not an AND https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 ). More importantly, because its bad business to sue your users who are providing you free advertising. In some cases twitch streaming may also be fair use. Many video game companies provide explicit permission to streamers to stream their video game - e.g. https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules Twitch is also different because now both the original video game and the streamer both have a copyright of the result, where in the screenshot case, the person creating the screenshot didn't add anything artistic, so they dont have any copyright added to the result. Remember in USA, copyright is based on if you put something artistic into the end result, not how hard you worked (other countries are different, google sweat of the brow) Wikimedia commons aims to be a repository of stuff that you can definitely use no matter what, without worrying that maybe the heir to some video game designer from the 80s comes out of hiding and makes a fuss. The images are still allowed on wikipedia, they just can't be in that section (think of it like the difference between debian main and debian non-free)
    - susam 6y ago
      Author of the original post of this thread. Thank you for the detailed explanation. Do you suggest that I upload these screenshots to Wikipedia directly and indicate that these screenshots are available as fair use? My intention here is to make these screenshots that I took on my computer while playing the game available on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digger_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digger_(video_game), so that this Wikipedia article contains a few screenshots of the original 1983 PC booter version of Digger, not just that of the 1998 remastered version.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        For the digger screenshots, yes they should be uploaded directly to wikipedia which has (relatively speaking) looser rules [1]. The screenshot of Logo and other things that are basically just text on a screen (and the text isn't literary) are totally ok at commons as {{PD-text}}. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software_screenshots#Screenshots_of_proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software_screenshots...
    - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
      I'm pretty sure every single game streamed cost more than $2500 to produce (some over $100M), and that streamers are doing it for financial gain, often putting themselves in the highest tax brackets. More importantly, the law is the law, and it's bad business to detract from that fact. Twitch isn't any different than the screenshot case... it took art to load the DOSBox programs... sending the right input signals to the various programs to allow the screenshot to be taken.
      - bawolff 6y ago
        The law states retail value not total value, although i actually misunderstood that part, its more about how much time the max jail sentence is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 > More importantly, the law is the law, and it's bad business to detract from that fact. Not really. When you get away from the Free Software hippies (i say that endaringly as one of them) who want freedom from copyright, the way religious people want purity, copyright is largely about risk management. > Twitch isn't any different than the screenshot case... There's lots of differences (in both directions). Lots of twitch has explicit permission to use the video games, most of twitch isn't streaming abandonware, the argument for fair use is probably present for both but much easier to make for wikipedia, etc. In terms of wikipedia, the concern is ideological purity, not that some defunct video game heir is going to come out of nowhere and sue us. > it took art to load the DOSBox programs... It took skill, not art. The screenshots themselves don't contain originality by the author of the post, so he doesn't get copyright of it in usa (european countries are often different). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... I'm not sure how that relates to your point though. Even if the screenshots contained originality from the author, like how twitch streams do, it doesn't remove the copyright from the original video game designer, it would just mean both have a copyright and you would need permission from both to do stuff with the created work. Disclaimer: IANAL
  - sp332 6y ago
    It would be a huge pain. It's easier to do a DMCA notice & takedown process than to subpoena Twitch for the identity of the streamers and then sue them in court.
- fulafel 6y ago
  The author of the post is a copyright holder of the screenshots as they are derivative works. (At least if the screenshots are good enough that they form a creative work)
martyvis 6y ago
Just an FYI, the Digger game is a PC lookalike clone of the arcade game Digdug I wasted a lot of 20 cent pieces on in my escape from university demands in 1982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug?wprov=sfla1
- flomo 6y ago
  Looks more similar to Mr. Do! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Do!
  - BlackFingolfin 6y ago
    Relevant blog post: https://pineapplemonacle.blogspot.com/2014/10/dig-dug-vs-mr-do-which-is-better-game.html https://pineapplemonacle.blogspot.com/2014/10/dig-dug-vs-mr-...
yobert 6y ago
This reminded me to go and run the Future Crew Second Reality demo. Still gives me the chills, 27 years later.
lxe 6y ago
Ah, Digger. I remember playing it off a 5 inch floppy on our IBM-compatible clone ЕС-1841 ПЭВМ.
- netsharc 6y ago
  I too have fond memories, I wonder if it's the first or second game I ever played. Some remastered it, the Windows version is still playable on x64 Windows 7, presumably also on Win10: https://www.digger.org/download.html https://www.digger.org/download.html

49 points by headalgorithm 6y ago

> By the way, I have donated these images above to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license: Not how copyright works. The author of the post is not the copyright holder of the screenshots (in the usa). They are either inelligible (simple commandline interfaces), or the aurhor of the computer program being screenshoted is the copyright holder. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Screenshots

hashtagmarkup 6y ago
Then why isn't every twitch streamer in jail?
- bawolff 6y ago
  For starters because copyright infringement doesn't carry jail sentences (unless the work is worth more than $2500, and you do it for intentional financial gain IANAL. Edit: i misunderstood this part slightly. Its an OR not an AND https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 ). More importantly, because its bad business to sue your users who are providing you free advertising. In some cases twitch streaming may also be fair use. Many video game companies provide explicit permission to streamers to stream their video game - e.g. https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules https://www.xbox.com/en-us/developers/rules Twitch is also different because now both the original video game and the streamer both have a copyright of the result, where in the screenshot case, the person creating the screenshot didn't add anything artistic, so they dont have any copyright added to the result. Remember in USA, copyright is based on if you put something artistic into the end result, not how hard you worked (other countries are different, google sweat of the brow) Wikimedia commons aims to be a repository of stuff that you can definitely use no matter what, without worrying that maybe the heir to some video game designer from the 80s comes out of hiding and makes a fuss. The images are still allowed on wikipedia, they just can't be in that section (think of it like the difference between debian main and debian non-free)
  - susam 6y ago
    Author of the original post of this thread. Thank you for the detailed explanation. Do you suggest that I upload these screenshots to Wikipedia directly and indicate that these screenshots are available as fair use? My intention here is to make these screenshots that I took on my computer while playing the game available on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digger_(video_game) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digger_(video_game), so that this Wikipedia article contains a few screenshots of the original 1983 PC booter version of Digger, not just that of the 1998 remastered version.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      For the digger screenshots, yes they should be uploaded directly to wikipedia which has (relatively speaking) looser rules [1]. The screenshot of Logo and other things that are basically just text on a screen (and the text isn't literary) are totally ok at commons as {{PD-text}}. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software_screenshots#Screenshots_of_proprietary_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Software_screenshots...
  - hashtagmarkup 6y ago
    I'm pretty sure every single game streamed cost more than $2500 to produce (some over $100M), and that streamers are doing it for financial gain, often putting themselves in the highest tax brackets. More importantly, the law is the law, and it's bad business to detract from that fact. Twitch isn't any different than the screenshot case... it took art to load the DOSBox programs... sending the right input signals to the various programs to allow the screenshot to be taken.
    - bawolff 6y ago
      The law states retail value not total value, although i actually misunderstood that part, its more about how much time the max jail sentence is: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2319 > More importantly, the law is the law, and it's bad business to detract from that fact. Not really. When you get away from the Free Software hippies (i say that endaringly as one of them) who want freedom from copyright, the way religious people want purity, copyright is largely about risk management. > Twitch isn't any different than the screenshot case... There's lots of differences (in both directions). Lots of twitch has explicit permission to use the video games, most of twitch isn't streaming abandonware, the argument for fair use is probably present for both but much easier to make for wikipedia, etc. In terms of wikipedia, the concern is ideological purity, not that some defunct video game heir is going to come out of nowhere and sue us. > it took art to load the DOSBox programs... It took skill, not art. The screenshots themselves don't contain originality by the author of the post, so he doesn't get copyright of it in usa (european countries are often different). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel_Corp https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgeman_Art_Library_v._Corel.... I'm not sure how that relates to your point though. Even if the screenshots contained originality from the author, like how twitch streams do, it doesn't remove the copyright from the original video game designer, it would just mean both have a copyright and you would need permission from both to do stuff with the created work. Disclaimer: IANAL
- sp332 6y ago
  It would be a huge pain. It's easier to do a DMCA notice & takedown process than to subpoena Twitch for the identity of the streamers and then sue them in court.
fulafel 6y ago
The author of the post is a copyright holder of the screenshots as they are derivative works. (At least if the screenshots are good enough that they form a creative work)

martyvis 6y ago

Just an FYI, the Digger game is a PC lookalike clone of the arcade game Digdug I wasted a lot of 20 cent pieces on in my escape from university demands in 1982 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug?wprov=sfla1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dig_Dug?wprov=sfla1

flomo 6y ago
Looks more similar to Mr. Do! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Do https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Do!
- BlackFingolfin 6y ago
  Relevant blog post: https://pineapplemonacle.blogspot.com/2014/10/dig-dug-vs-mr-do-which-is-better-game.html https://pineapplemonacle.blogspot.com/2014/10/dig-dug-vs-mr-...

yobert 6y ago

This reminded me to go and run the Future Crew Second Reality demo. Still gives me the chills, 27 years later.

lxe 6y ago

Ah, Digger. I remember playing it off a 5 inch floppy on our IBM-compatible clone ЕС-1841 ПЭВМ.

netsharc 6y ago
I too have fond memories, I wonder if it's the first or second game I ever played. Some remastered it, the Windows version is still playable on x64 Windows 7, presumably also on Win10: https://www.digger.org/download.html https://www.digger.org/download.html