4 ms·

I don't know why everyone's piling on GP here. This isn't abandonware, the game is still being distributed by a company that still operates. And TFA author isn'

I don't know why everyone's piling on GP here. This isn't abandonware, the game is still being distributed by a company that still operates. And TFA author isn't distributing a mod or a patch, they're distributing the full actual game, which the owner is also still distributing. I mean even then it may still be fine. But speculating about what the company might possibly think is beside the point - they're right there active on twitter! It's perfectly reasonable to wonder why TFA author didn't bother to reach out.

Freak_NL 5y ago
If the general very strict adherence to copyright in Japan is anything to go by, contacting them would probably mean getting a 'no, absolutely not' back initially, and even if they find someone there who is receptive to the idea the chances of getting full, legally sound permission seem remote. Not contacting them means keeping the clearance status at 'legally copyright infringement' rather than 'explicitly forbidden by the owners'. The two are the same if you just want to answer the 'Is this legal?' question, but for a noncommercial community translation effort like this it changes the 'Is this morally sound?' one.
- lmm 5y ago
  To my mind wilful ignorance is not a defence. If you know they'd say no if you asked so you don't ask them, that means you know it's against their wishes.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    "To my mind" isn't really a legally defensible position. It's unlikely Kairosoft, or any company, will sue in the US without first notifying. Courts much prefer you solve things without taking up their time, and so most company lawyers know to first give notice. Given that, it makes perfect sense NOT to ask for permission. If Kairosoft is unaware of it, or okay with it, for the time being at least, they can just ignore it. If that stance later changes, they will almost assuredly notify (especially given the international nature of it, since an international court case, against fans, for something they're not selling, is going to be a lot of trouble and expense and loss of good will, for no real gain) in which case the translation can be taken down. So legally, this is the sounder strategy. But you may be talking about the ethics of it. We'd have to define what we mean by ethics before really diving into that, but consider - if they were to ask permission, even if everyone involved in creating the game, even if the CEO of the company, were all on board letting them translate it...the lawyers likely wouldn't be. Actually, the lawyers might WANT to say yes, too, but feel it their legal duty to say no - "If we give them the okay others might etc etc and it would weaken future cases in court and etc etc". And based on that the company would say no, even though -everyone involved- there wants to say yes. Not asking, then, gives the company plausible defense later should they need to assert their copyrights, without actually telling the translators 'no' now. In short, not asking, regardless of how the company feels about it, risks only that the translators will later have to scrap their work. It does not risk the company anything (and in fact gives them the option to allow their work to reach a broader audience AND to assert their copyright any time they choose). As long as the translators are okay with that risk, it presents a win-win. Now, what makes sense to do -in Japan-, I couldn't say.
    - lmm 5y ago
      > But you may be talking about the ethics of it. We'd have to define what we mean by ethics before really diving into that, but consider - if they were to ask permission, even if everyone involved in creating the game, even if the CEO of the company, were all on board letting them translate it...the lawyers likely wouldn't be. Actually, the lawyers might WANT to say yes, too, but feel it their legal duty to say no - "If we give them the okay others might etc etc and it would weaken future cases in court and etc etc". And based on that the company would say no, even though -everyone involved- there wants to say yes. I'm talking about the ethics. I think when you're doing something with someone else's creative work, you have to give someone an opportunity to say no. And while it's possible they may want to say yes but not be in a position to do so (for whatever reason), that's ultimately their problem; not asking them because you think they would say no but secretly mean yes is... icky reasoning to say the least.
      - lostcolony 5y ago
        So this is why I said we have to define what we mean by ethics. You said "when you're doing something with someone else's creative work, you have to give someone an opportunity to say no". Why, other than that's how you feel? I'm arguing from a utilitarian aspect - ethics as a means to maximize overall utility would dictate not to ask. But I'm curious what perspective you're speaking from, other than, as mentioned, gut feel (which will leave us at a bit of a conversational impasse I'm afraid).
        lmm 5y ago
        I could make a rule-utilitarian argument for why authorial control is a good principle, but honestly my position is more deontological. Reason is the slave of the passions, all ethics discussion must bottom out in human instincts, so my only real argument is that most people seem to think this is a good rule: it's widely accepted that the author of a creative work should have a lot of control over how that work is reused. Most countries have copyright laws that let a creator control the production of derivative works; many go beyond that and have non-transferrable "moral rights" that let the author control derivative works more strictly than intact copies of their original work. Even the FSF, largely anti-copyright, gives the author options to strictly control how their work is presented in the GFDL (e.g. invariant sections).

Freak_NL 5y ago

If the general very strict adherence to copyright in Japan is anything to go by, contacting them would probably mean getting a 'no, absolutely not' back initially, and even if they find someone there who is receptive to the idea the chances of getting full, legally sound permission seem remote. Not contacting them means keeping the clearance status at 'legally copyright infringement' rather than 'explicitly forbidden by the owners'. The two are the same if you just want to answer the 'Is this legal?' question, but for a noncommercial community translation effort like this it changes the 'Is this morally sound?' one.

lmm 5y ago
To my mind wilful ignorance is not a defence. If you know they'd say no if you asked so you don't ask them, that means you know it's against their wishes.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  "To my mind" isn't really a legally defensible position. It's unlikely Kairosoft, or any company, will sue in the US without first notifying. Courts much prefer you solve things without taking up their time, and so most company lawyers know to first give notice. Given that, it makes perfect sense NOT to ask for permission. If Kairosoft is unaware of it, or okay with it, for the time being at least, they can just ignore it. If that stance later changes, they will almost assuredly notify (especially given the international nature of it, since an international court case, against fans, for something they're not selling, is going to be a lot of trouble and expense and loss of good will, for no real gain) in which case the translation can be taken down. So legally, this is the sounder strategy. But you may be talking about the ethics of it. We'd have to define what we mean by ethics before really diving into that, but consider - if they were to ask permission, even if everyone involved in creating the game, even if the CEO of the company, were all on board letting them translate it...the lawyers likely wouldn't be. Actually, the lawyers might WANT to say yes, too, but feel it their legal duty to say no - "If we give them the okay others might etc etc and it would weaken future cases in court and etc etc". And based on that the company would say no, even though -everyone involved- there wants to say yes. Not asking, then, gives the company plausible defense later should they need to assert their copyrights, without actually telling the translators 'no' now. In short, not asking, regardless of how the company feels about it, risks only that the translators will later have to scrap their work. It does not risk the company anything (and in fact gives them the option to allow their work to reach a broader audience AND to assert their copyright any time they choose). As long as the translators are okay with that risk, it presents a win-win. Now, what makes sense to do -in Japan-, I couldn't say.
  - lmm 5y ago
    > But you may be talking about the ethics of it. We'd have to define what we mean by ethics before really diving into that, but consider - if they were to ask permission, even if everyone involved in creating the game, even if the CEO of the company, were all on board letting them translate it...the lawyers likely wouldn't be. Actually, the lawyers might WANT to say yes, too, but feel it their legal duty to say no - "If we give them the okay others might etc etc and it would weaken future cases in court and etc etc". And based on that the company would say no, even though -everyone involved- there wants to say yes. I'm talking about the ethics. I think when you're doing something with someone else's creative work, you have to give someone an opportunity to say no. And while it's possible they may want to say yes but not be in a position to do so (for whatever reason), that's ultimately their problem; not asking them because you think they would say no but secretly mean yes is... icky reasoning to say the least.
    - lostcolony 5y ago
      So this is why I said we have to define what we mean by ethics. You said "when you're doing something with someone else's creative work, you have to give someone an opportunity to say no". Why, other than that's how you feel? I'm arguing from a utilitarian aspect - ethics as a means to maximize overall utility would dictate not to ask. But I'm curious what perspective you're speaking from, other than, as mentioned, gut feel (which will leave us at a bit of a conversational impasse I'm afraid).
      - lmm 5y ago
        I could make a rule-utilitarian argument for why authorial control is a good principle, but honestly my position is more deontological. Reason is the slave of the passions, all ethics discussion must bottom out in human instincts, so my only real argument is that most people seem to think this is a good rule: it's widely accepted that the author of a creative work should have a lot of control over how that work is reused. Most countries have copyright laws that let a creator control the production of derivative works; many go beyond that and have non-transferrable "moral rights" that let the author control derivative works more strictly than intact copies of their original work. Even the FSF, largely anti-copyright, gives the author options to strictly control how their work is presented in the GFDL (e.g. invariant sections).