6 ms·
I doubt you can redistribute the fixed product, that would definitely be a copyright infringement. But I don’t see why you couldn’t distribute a patch file, wh
by pja 5y ago
I doubt you can redistribute the fixed product, that would definitely be a copyright infringement.
But I don’t see why you couldn’t distribute a patch file, which people could apply to their own (legitimately acquired) copy of the original binary.
- FastEatSlow 5y agoIs there any difference legally between the user applying the patch file themselves and them being provided a script to automatically patch it for them?
- AdmiralAsshat 5y agoWell, so far it's how Fan Translations of videogames have largely avoided legal scrutiny: they distribute the translation as a ROM patch, but it's up to the end-user to track down the actual ROM / game dump.
- PeterisP 5y agoThat seems shady from a legal perspective - unlike a patch, a translation is obviously a derived work (being one of the explicitly listed examples in law of what is defined as a derived work), and you need permission from the author to distribute or even make a translation.
- Hamuko 5y agoIt's probably not legal but it's in the "no one really cares territory" since to actually enjoy the translation, you need to either buy a copy of the game or pirate it. In the former case, great, a sale made to a person that would've never otherwise bought the game and in the latter it makes no real difference since you were never marketing to that person anyways. The English release of Steins;Gate is actually an edited version of the fan translation, so the property owners couldn't have been that upset with the fan translators.
- chillfox 5y agoI would argue that the user running a script to apply the patch is them applying it themselves. I believe the important part here is that the patch does not include the copyrighted software, only the modifications.
- bagacrap 5y agoI can't see a difference between these two things. I would think the `patch` command and a (bash?) "script" are legally equivalent.
- bitwize 5y agoThis is actually legal under US copyright law. There was a case involving the Game Genie which Nintendo sued to stop distribution of, in which it was ruled that modifying a program for personal use was fair use. If your EULA forbids you from decompiling, that's still binding because the EULA is the only thing that authorizes you to use the software to begin with. The problems creep in where if you, say, decompile Windows to fix bugs in it, and then go to work on the Linux kernel (or other core system component). You are now tainted and probably shouldn't work on code similar to Windows because you can't prove that you didn't copy Windows code from your head into the new code.
- lovemenot 5y ago>> This is actually legal under copyright law. Presumably you meant under US copyright law. This based on my observation that only people referencing that particular jurisdiction would write as though there were only one. It's particularly galling in comments on an article about EU laws.
- tremon 5y agobecause the EULA is the only thing that authorizes you to use the software to begin with Do you have a source for this claim? I'd say that the primacy of having (legitimate) access to the software trumps any EULA provision concerning its use. The logical consequence of your assertion would be that software without an EULA can never legally be used.
- bitwize 5y ago