3 ms·

> no way that it's fair use to distribute a decompiled copy of a game That’s not what these people did. A source code of a re-implementation of a game engine i

> no way that it's fair use to distribute a decompiled copy of a game That’s not what these people did. A source code of a re-implementation of a game engine is not a copy of the game. I have compiled and tested that thing, but it was only legal for me to do so because I had the original one bought on Steam. > I could get sued by the composer Right. “The great thing about this country is you can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and you probably win. Or at least, get a settlement.” https://gta.fandom.com/wiki/Rakin_and_Ponzer https://gta.fandom.com/wiki/Rakin_and_Ponzer

klodolph 5y ago
> That’s not what these people did. Yes, it is. They decompiled it with tools like IDA Pro and Ghidra, and then they cleaned up and refactored the results. > ... but it was only legal for me to do so because I had the original one bought on Steam. Whether it's legal for you to run the program is a separate issue. The fact is: the code is distributed to anyone who can access GitHub, not only people who have legitimate copies of GTA3. > “The great thing about this country is you can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and you probably win. It should have been clear that I was saying that the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win.
- Const-me 5y ago
  > the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win I wonder was that tested in a court? In a case where the person who transcribed the song has not profited in any way from that, neither selling the transcription, not selling ads on the web?
  - klodolph 5y ago
    > I wonder was that tested in a court? Yes, over and over again I'm sure. I remember hearing about some specific cases involving Broadway composers but I can't remember the details. This is not some kind of weird edge case, it's an entire industry. You have people who write music, people who perform music, people who transcribe records, and then companies which sell books of transcriptions / arrangements. This is what most of the rock/pop music books at your local music store contain. There's a market for people who want to learn to play The Beatles, so a skilled musician will listen to a Beatles record and transcribe all of the parts, an engraver will lay it out on the page, and a publishing company will negotiate with the rightsholders for a license. You'll see many different versions of the same song, if you go down to the store. Some of the differences are due to different transcription choices, and other differences are simplifications or arrangements for different skill levels, different instruments, or other reasons. All of them are different, but the composer credit will be the same.
    - Const-me 5y ago
      On the high level, copyright is a mechanism allowing to make profits from intellectual property. Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Giving transcriptions for free and not even making money with advertisements on the web is not, and I would be interested to see a court case against a person doing that. Even if that’s a copyright violation that’s still reasonable. The copyright owner can assume that at least some of the people who have download free transcriptions would otherwise go to a music store and pay them for the license. The transcriber has caused monetary losses to copyright holder. But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games.
      - klodolph 5y ago
        > Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Maybe the law should work that way, but it definitely doesn't work that way. > Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Fair use has four factors, and whether the infringing party is making profit is only one of the four factors. You can also get sued for photocopying sheet music you legally purchased, when you're not making any money from the copies or from the performances. It has happened because selling sheet music is the primary way some composers make money in the first place, and so much of the case law around music dates back to an era where that was just how music was published. > But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games. These kinds of arguments don't have any legal basis. You can argue for changes in copyright law all you like. Your original comment was about the legality, and that's what I'm responding to.
  - bigwavedave 5y ago
    > the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win >> I wonder was that tested in a court? In a case where the person who transcribed the song has not profited in any way from that, neither selling the transcription, not selling ads on the web? N=1, but when I was in high school, I remember that several friends in the drama/theatre department were really disappointed one year because they'd performed a copyrighted play the year before for our school (at no charge; our principal firmly believed that charging the $1 admission they typically charged separated the "haves" from the "have-nots"), the board of education received a letter from the copyright holder, and now they were no longer able to do any plays for the school. I guess this doesn't touch whether or not this has been tested in court, but it certainly scared the pants off our board of education.

klodolph 5y ago

> That’s not what these people did. Yes, it is. They decompiled it with tools like IDA Pro and Ghidra, and then they cleaned up and refactored the results. > ... but it was only legal for me to do so because I had the original one bought on Steam. Whether it's legal for you to run the program is a separate issue. The fact is: the code is distributed to anyone who can access GitHub, not only people who have legitimate copies of GTA3. > “The great thing about this country is you can sue anyone for pretty much anything, and you probably win. It should have been clear that I was saying that the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win.

Const-me 5y ago
> the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win I wonder was that tested in a court? In a case where the person who transcribed the song has not profited in any way from that, neither selling the transcription, not selling ads on the web?
- klodolph 5y ago
  > I wonder was that tested in a court? Yes, over and over again I'm sure. I remember hearing about some specific cases involving Broadway composers but I can't remember the details. This is not some kind of weird edge case, it's an entire industry. You have people who write music, people who perform music, people who transcribe records, and then companies which sell books of transcriptions / arrangements. This is what most of the rock/pop music books at your local music store contain. There's a market for people who want to learn to play The Beatles, so a skilled musician will listen to a Beatles record and transcribe all of the parts, an engraver will lay it out on the page, and a publishing company will negotiate with the rightsholders for a license. You'll see many different versions of the same song, if you go down to the store. Some of the differences are due to different transcription choices, and other differences are simplifications or arrangements for different skill levels, different instruments, or other reasons. All of them are different, but the composer credit will be the same.
  - Const-me 5y ago
    On the high level, copyright is a mechanism allowing to make profits from intellectual property. Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Giving transcriptions for free and not even making money with advertisements on the web is not, and I would be interested to see a court case against a person doing that. Even if that’s a copyright violation that’s still reasonable. The copyright owner can assume that at least some of the people who have download free transcriptions would otherwise go to a music store and pay them for the license. The transcriber has caused monetary losses to copyright holder. But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games.
    - klodolph 5y ago
      > Take Two should demonstrate in the court how the defendants interfered with their ability to extract profit. I don’t think they can do that. Maybe the law should work that way, but it definitely doesn't work that way. > Selling transcriptions = making profit from copyrighted work. Obviously illegal unless the seller has an agreement with the copyright holder. Fair use has four factors, and whether the infringing party is making profit is only one of the four factors. You can also get sued for photocopying sheet music you legally purchased, when you're not making any money from the copies or from the performances. It has happened because selling sheet music is the primary way some composers make money in the first place, and so much of the case law around music dates back to an era where that was just how music was published. > But with GTA3 it’s different. People like me who built and run the game from that github repository still need to own the original games. Therefore, people who developed that code have not caused any monetary losses to the developer selling original games. These kinds of arguments don't have any legal basis. You can argue for changes in copyright law all you like. Your original comment was about the legality, and that's what I'm responding to.
- bigwavedave 5y ago
  > the composer would have legal grounds to sue and win >> I wonder was that tested in a court? In a case where the person who transcribed the song has not profited in any way from that, neither selling the transcription, not selling ads on the web? N=1, but when I was in high school, I remember that several friends in the drama/theatre department were really disappointed one year because they'd performed a copyrighted play the year before for our school (at no charge; our principal firmly believed that charging the $1 admission they typically charged separated the "haves" from the "have-nots"), the board of education received a letter from the copyright holder, and now they were no longer able to do any plays for the school. I guess this doesn't touch whether or not this has been tested in court, but it certainly scared the pants off our board of education.