8 ms·

Torchlight art assets stolen, used in iOS game Armed Heroes

120 points by ukdm 14y ago

bradleyland 14y ago
> "Unfortunately, there is little else that anyone except Apple can do." Game art falls under copyright, doesn't it? Couldn't the author go after them for infringement?
- miahi 14y ago
  It's probably not easy/cheap to win an infringement case in China.
  - EvilTerran 14y ago
    It's an iOS game -- doesn't that mean it's distributed through Apple, so they'd be able to pull it in response to a notice of copyright infringement?
    - glass- 14y ago
      Yes, which was the point of the original statement: "there is little else that anyone except Apple can do".
    - Ralith 14y ago
      The article state that they gave notice, and that Apple hasn't done anything yet. It's interesting to see what Apple bans from the app store without a thought, and what they're reluctant to do anything about.
      - roqetman 14y ago
        it's only been 3 days. I would hope that apple checks very carefully before they pull an app. False claims can also be made.
        GrumpySimon 14y ago
        yes, otherwise someone unscrupulous could just file complaints against all their competitors and effectively lock them out of the App Store for a period of time.
      - miahi 14y ago
        We don't really know how long it takes for Apple to apply all the bans that we hear about (and the others we don't hear about), but it would be interesting to find out how this process works. This situation reminds me of the notice Apple sent to retailers not to sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
      - k-mcgrady 14y ago
        I've been on the receiving end of an app related copyright notice before. (I used the 'NFL' trademark without permission - I'm not American and thought it was the name of the sport and couldn't be copyrighted). Apple forwarded me the notice via email and asked me to respond and take action. I responded to the NFL guys, fixed the problem and never had to remove the app. So Apple gives the developer a chance to respond (i.e. it will probably take a few days to see any action). If they didn't we would end up with the mess like they have with DMCA notice takedowns on YouTube.
        jrmg 14y ago
        I was also on the receiving end of a notice a couple of years ago. In my case Apple took the app down after 7 days. I wrote about it in more detail at http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-available-again http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-availabl...
  - mattmanser 14y ago
    Wouldn't the jurisdiction be Canada? As that's where they're selling it.
    - glass- 14y ago
      The company is based in China, and when it comes to IP and copyright China typically doesn't care. Sure they could file against them in Canada but it will get them nowhere.
mille562 14y ago
It seems like a DMCA takedown notice would work in this situation. Anyone have a reason why that would not be a valid method?
- Zimahl 14y ago
  It should definitely be valid. Apple should pull down the app until EGLS can disprove infringement, and if Apple doesn't they are just as liable.
  - knowtheory 14y ago
    That's not how the DCMA works however. The purpose of the DCMA is accountability not enforcement (when it comes to the Safe Harbor provision). Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned. That said, Apple can do whatever they like with their platform, and show little compunction about doing so. I'm reminded of all of the cyberpunk Gibsonian/Stephensonian worlds where governments have given way to governance by and for corporations. Welcome to the future.
    - cube13 14y ago
      >Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned. That's exactly why they would make the DMCA complaint.
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      The DMCA goes further than you seem to think. Without it, Apple is directly liable for copyright infringement. They are making and distributing copies of Torchlight's work without authorization each time someone downloads the app; the fact that some other entity provided it to them does not absolve them of liability for this infringement. If Apple wants to shed liability for the copyright infringement they are committing they would be required to promptly remove or block access to the alleged infringing content, not simply put the notifier in touch with someone. If they don't remove or disable access, they don't qualify for the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and remain liable. Even should Apple block access, they do not remove themselves from the equation; you are wrong to say it's now solely in the hands of the two parties as far as the DMCA is concerned. Instead, the alleged infringer now has an opportunity to file a counter-notice disputing the claim of infringement. When Apple receives this counter-notice, to retain their safe harbor protection from liability, they must now promptly restore access to the content. This serves as protection against excessive damage done by false claims of infringement. Apple and other service providers are not expected to decide the merits of either claim. Simply take down upon notice of infringement, restore upon counter-notice. Only then is the situation left to the two parties and the courts to resolve.
nates 14y ago
i dont see it up anymore...
- kqr2 14y ago
  Link to game still works for me: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/armed-heroes-online-3d-mmorpg/id533790395 http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/armed-heroes-online-3d-mmorpg...
aquanext 14y ago
This is hilarious: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=144793 http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=144793
- glass- 14y ago
  They're trying to justify their wholesale reuse of audio-visual assets by pointing out that a game created by Max Schaefer, Erich Schaefer and Travis Baldree uses ideas from previous games they created. That has to be a joke.
  - pwny 14y ago
    Not defending the guy because they obviously stole the assets (the file names are the final nail in the coffin) but that's not his argument. He's claiming that they didn't copy the assets but inspired themselves from them. He's claiming that they (just like everyone else) are building upon the shoulders of giants. That argument is perfectly valid, until the accusing party pulls your files named after their own bosses (carrying the typos along too). At that point, you've pretty much been proven wrong.
    - cube13 14y ago
      It's a perfectly valid argument if it's over game mechanics or rules. Those are not copyrightable, and while it is ethically questionable, there's nothing illegal about copying mechanics completely while putting a new skin onto the game. It's less valid if it's copying art or sound assets. Unfortunately, this discussion isn't about mechanics(as tbaltree notes in the thread), it's about the specific art assets.
      - iamdave 14y ago
        and while it is ethically questionable, there's nothing illegal about copying mechanics completely while putting a new skin onto the game. And thus: Angry Birds.
- talmand 14y ago
tptacek 14y ago
"Stolen"? What do you mean, "stolen"? Torchlight still has its assets, right? That's not "stolen"!
- okamiueru 14y ago
  Don't be pedantic.
  - pygy_ 14y ago
    I think Thomas is being sarcastic.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    I think his comment is tongue-in-cheek - noting that when it comes to piracy we like to get pedantic about the difference between infringement and theft, but when we're holding the short end of the stick we'll gladly assign whatever label we please.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  While I feel you might be mocking the folks that use this when calling pirating a movie "stealing", your point is still valid. Saying "stolen" serves only to sensationalize what happened. Saying "rips off" or "copies" would be more accurate. As to why some people apparently feel more comfortable saying "stolen" in this case versus people sharing MP3s: There's an obvious qualitative difference between people sharing files, and someone passing work off as their own, especially when profiting from it. From what I can tell, it's the whole plagiarism part that really pisses people off.
  - eridius 14y ago
    I think it's twofold. You've got it right that the plagiarism is probably the biggest reason, but the other reason is that they're using this "stolen" material for their own personal gain. If I download some MP3s and listen to them myself, there's no personal gain (besides the literal gain of having the MP3, of course). If I download some MP3s and put them in my product, now I'm illegally benefitting from someone else's work. I would be willing to call that stealing the MP3s even if I'm not trying to pass the MP3s off as my own creation.
simonh 14y ago
For those commenting against IP rights and saying this isn't such a big deal, suppose thousands of people buy this rip-off game. Later the original creators release an iOS version. What are the chances of someone who bought the rip-off then buying the original creator's game? If anything they're likely to view the legitimate game as the rip-off because it was released later, and say so in App Store reviews. Novelty has a pretty high value in itself, and that value is being stolen.

120 points by ukdm 14y ago

> "Unfortunately, there is little else that anyone except Apple can do." Game art falls under copyright, doesn't it? Couldn't the author go after them for infringement?

miahi 14y ago
It's probably not easy/cheap to win an infringement case in China.
- EvilTerran 14y ago
  It's an iOS game -- doesn't that mean it's distributed through Apple, so they'd be able to pull it in response to a notice of copyright infringement?
  - glass- 14y ago
    Yes, which was the point of the original statement: "there is little else that anyone except Apple can do".
  - Ralith 14y ago
    The article state that they gave notice, and that Apple hasn't done anything yet. It's interesting to see what Apple bans from the app store without a thought, and what they're reluctant to do anything about.
    - roqetman 14y ago
      it's only been 3 days. I would hope that apple checks very carefully before they pull an app. False claims can also be made.
      - GrumpySimon 14y ago
        yes, otherwise someone unscrupulous could just file complaints against all their competitors and effectively lock them out of the App Store for a period of time.
    - miahi 14y ago
      We don't really know how long it takes for Apple to apply all the bans that we hear about (and the others we don't hear about), but it would be interesting to find out how this process works. This situation reminds me of the notice Apple sent to retailers not to sell the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1.
    - k-mcgrady 14y ago
      I've been on the receiving end of an app related copyright notice before. (I used the 'NFL' trademark without permission - I'm not American and thought it was the name of the sport and couldn't be copyrighted). Apple forwarded me the notice via email and asked me to respond and take action. I responded to the NFL guys, fixed the problem and never had to remove the app. So Apple gives the developer a chance to respond (i.e. it will probably take a few days to see any action). If they didn't we would end up with the mess like they have with DMCA notice takedowns on YouTube.
      - jrmg 14y ago
        I was also on the receiving end of a notice a couple of years ago. In my case Apple took the app down after 7 days. I wrote about it in more detail at http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-available-again http://blog.th.ingsmadeoutofotherthin.gs/eucalyptus-availabl...
- mattmanser 14y ago
  Wouldn't the jurisdiction be Canada? As that's where they're selling it.
  - glass- 14y ago
    The company is based in China, and when it comes to IP and copyright China typically doesn't care. Sure they could file against them in Canada but it will get them nowhere.

mille562 14y ago

It seems like a DMCA takedown notice would work in this situation. Anyone have a reason why that would not be a valid method?

Zimahl 14y ago
It should definitely be valid. Apple should pull down the app until EGLS can disprove infringement, and if Apple doesn't they are just as liable.
- knowtheory 14y ago
  That's not how the DCMA works however. The purpose of the DCMA is accountability not enforcement (when it comes to the Safe Harbor provision). Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned. That said, Apple can do whatever they like with their platform, and show little compunction about doing so. I'm reminded of all of the cyberpunk Gibsonian/Stephensonian worlds where governments have given way to governance by and for corporations. Welcome to the future.
  - cube13 14y ago
    >Runic can, through the DCMA ensure that the content is either taken down, or they are put in touch with the party they assert are infringing. From there on out, it is the responsibility of the two parties to work out, as far as the DCMA is concerned. That's exactly why they would make the DMCA complaint.
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    The DMCA goes further than you seem to think. Without it, Apple is directly liable for copyright infringement. They are making and distributing copies of Torchlight's work without authorization each time someone downloads the app; the fact that some other entity provided it to them does not absolve them of liability for this infringement. If Apple wants to shed liability for the copyright infringement they are committing they would be required to promptly remove or block access to the alleged infringing content, not simply put the notifier in touch with someone. If they don't remove or disable access, they don't qualify for the safe harbor provision of the DMCA and remain liable. Even should Apple block access, they do not remove themselves from the equation; you are wrong to say it's now solely in the hands of the two parties as far as the DMCA is concerned. Instead, the alleged infringer now has an opportunity to file a counter-notice disputing the claim of infringement. When Apple receives this counter-notice, to retain their safe harbor protection from liability, they must now promptly restore access to the content. This serves as protection against excessive damage done by false claims of infringement. Apple and other service providers are not expected to decide the merits of either claim. Simply take down upon notice of infringement, restore upon counter-notice. Only then is the situation left to the two parties and the courts to resolve.

nates 14y ago

i dont see it up anymore...

kqr2 14y ago
Link to game still works for me: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/armed-heroes-online-3d-mmorpg/id533790395 http://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/armed-heroes-online-3d-mmorpg...

aquanext 14y ago

This is hilarious: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=144793 http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=144793

glass- 14y ago
They're trying to justify their wholesale reuse of audio-visual assets by pointing out that a game created by Max Schaefer, Erich Schaefer and Travis Baldree uses ideas from previous games they created. That has to be a joke.
- pwny 14y ago
  Not defending the guy because they obviously stole the assets (the file names are the final nail in the coffin) but that's not his argument. He's claiming that they didn't copy the assets but inspired themselves from them. He's claiming that they (just like everyone else) are building upon the shoulders of giants. That argument is perfectly valid, until the accusing party pulls your files named after their own bosses (carrying the typos along too). At that point, you've pretty much been proven wrong.
  - cube13 14y ago
    It's a perfectly valid argument if it's over game mechanics or rules. Those are not copyrightable, and while it is ethically questionable, there's nothing illegal about copying mechanics completely while putting a new skin onto the game. It's less valid if it's copying art or sound assets. Unfortunately, this discussion isn't about mechanics(as tbaltree notes in the thread), it's about the specific art assets.
    - iamdave 14y ago
      and while it is ethically questionable, there's nothing illegal about copying mechanics completely while putting a new skin onto the game. And thus: Angry Birds.
talmand 14y ago

tptacek 14y ago

"Stolen"? What do you mean, "stolen"? Torchlight still has its assets, right? That's not "stolen"!

okamiueru 14y ago
Don't be pedantic.
- pygy_ 14y ago
  I think Thomas is being sarcastic.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  I think his comment is tongue-in-cheek - noting that when it comes to piracy we like to get pedantic about the difference between infringement and theft, but when we're holding the short end of the stick we'll gladly assign whatever label we please.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
MichaelGG 14y ago
While I feel you might be mocking the folks that use this when calling pirating a movie "stealing", your point is still valid. Saying "stolen" serves only to sensationalize what happened. Saying "rips off" or "copies" would be more accurate. As to why some people apparently feel more comfortable saying "stolen" in this case versus people sharing MP3s: There's an obvious qualitative difference between people sharing files, and someone passing work off as their own, especially when profiting from it. From what I can tell, it's the whole plagiarism part that really pisses people off.
- eridius 14y ago
  I think it's twofold. You've got it right that the plagiarism is probably the biggest reason, but the other reason is that they're using this "stolen" material for their own personal gain. If I download some MP3s and listen to them myself, there's no personal gain (besides the literal gain of having the MP3, of course). If I download some MP3s and put them in my product, now I'm illegally benefitting from someone else's work. I would be willing to call that stealing the MP3s even if I'm not trying to pass the MP3s off as my own creation.

simonh 14y ago

For those commenting against IP rights and saying this isn't such a big deal, suppose thousands of people buy this rip-off game. Later the original creators release an iOS version. What are the chances of someone who bought the rip-off then buying the original creator's game? If anything they're likely to view the legitimate game as the rip-off because it was released later, and say so in App Store reviews. Novelty has a pretty high value in itself, and that value is being stolen.