4 ms·

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4431197 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4431197 Double standard, HN? At least qxcv sees the light: "It's one thing to

by Jach 14y ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4431197 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4431197 Double standard, HN? At least qxcv sees the light: "It's one thing to make a Pac-Man-like game. But this is being called the trademarked name Pac-Man, and you've copied the artwork straight from Pac-Man. Seems certain this isn't an official licensed version. In which case, you should change all those items immediately. It's illegal and it's just not cool. Here are the guys you are ripping off. Tōru Iwatani and his friends at Namco. Tōru is a very nice guy: http://pacmanmuseum.com/history/Toru-Iwatani.php http://pacmanmuseum.com/history/Toru-Iwatani.php "

arn 14y ago
This is illegal too. I didn't bother posting again because it seems more obvious. In the previous example, many probably didn't know it wasn't an official port. (author added disclaimers later)
- tylerneylon 14y ago
  Is it morally wrong that this was created? I appreciate that this exists, and personally am more likely to purchase or promote official Pac-Man products because of it. I think it's a good thing. Legality is important, but underneath that is the purpose of law itself. I like the idea of keeping in mind both legality and the intent of the law. If you are making something cool, that adds value (including entertainment), and does not pretend to be, or detract from those you borrow ideas from, it seems ok to me. You may disagree with my particular idea of fair use - the main point is to promote thought about general morality, and not just condemn on the basis of legality alone.
  - arn 14y ago
    So I presume that the person who made this knows it's "illegal" to use the pacman name and doesn't care. So that's fine, its not like I am not going to report him to whoever owns the ip. The previous example, a) it wasn't clear that the author knew it was not right b) the people affected where the type of people who would post to HN. Let me ask you this, do you see anything wrong with someone creating a hipmunk clone called "hipmunk.co" and use their exact CSS and HTML? It's the same situation. If you see nothing wrong with that, then that's where we disagree. Edit: there's no reason why he can't provide entertainment and value but just name it something else, and use original graphics. To clarify: no one is arguing against the creation of a game that plays the same. The argument is using the exact name and artwork.
    - akldfgj 14y ago
      hipmunk is not over 30 years old, though, and is not far older than the USA's originally agreed upon reasonably limited lifetime of copyright protection, before Disney lobbying created the never-ending copyright extension in the 20th century. So there's that distinction.
tylerneylon 14y ago
I enjoy seeing recreations of code like this. It's educational and fun, and this Pac-Man does not take anything away from the original. It's unfortunate that IP law is so vague and intimidating. It can easily have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity -- you're afraid something might not be ok, but you don't really know, so you just don't try. For me, that's a red flag in a legal system. Competition, creativity, and education are all great things that deserve clarity and protection, both as an original creator, and as someone adding value with the basis of past work.
- wamatt 14y ago
  Agree, esp. regarding creative suppression and intimidation. While one should respect the law, I do wonder how the GP can so factually and confidently, conclude the project's legal status. For example, only as recently as April 2012, did Namco Bandai choose to even register the trademark for "Pac-man" in Europe. In addition, Midway Games, who previously owned the distro rights in the USA, filed for Chapter 11 in 2009. I certainly have no clue as to it's status, but I do know there is often a digression between what a person thinks is illegal, the actual law, intepretation of the law, case law (e.g. precedents), politics of the law, pragmatic issues etc. Hence the reason we have lawyers, that understand these issues better (and even then, they often disagree with each other). There are also degrees of legality (civil, criminal etc) from jay walking, copyright infringement, patents to mass murder and genocide. Is Wikileaks illegal? Did Samsung illegally create certain Android smartphones? etc. Is <x> illegal?, does not seem like a simple boolean, for a wide range of values. The author of this project, is clearly a huge Pac-man fan, does not appear to be profiting financially (released the source on GH), and is generating interest in a product, that could be potentially be capitalized on by the rights holder.
guilloche 14y ago
I donot think that this application is illegal as long as the author did not use any original art work and trademark (if it still applys, trademark needs to pay to extend it, right?). 1. Any patents related to pacman expired already. 2. Copyright law does not forbid recreation of original games. The JS author just need to make sure all the code/art was created by himself. Please point out what is wrong about my understanding of the law system if there is any.
- ghshephard 14y ago
  I just played Ms Pacman for 10 minutes. It looks like they used all the original artwork and ghost behavior routines (Red, Pinky, Brown all do the right thing) - right down to the timing of the reversals around 5 and 20 seconds.
pooriaazimi 14y ago
It's not double standard IMO. You don't buy Pac-Man from namco anymore (I hope they've stopped selling it). So, nobody (much less them) gives a damn if it is being ripped off. Doodle Jump, on the other hand, is a game that you can (and millions do, every month) buy from the App Store. If you build a clone of it, the Lima Sky guys might lose some customers. That's why creating a Doodle Jump clone is wrong, but creating a Pac-Mac clone is not.
- Jach 14y ago
  People do indeed continue to buy Pac-Man from Namco (http://www.amazon.com/Namco-Networks-40406PAC-MAN-PAC-MAN-Download/dp/B003ZSIJA2/ http://www.amazon.com/Namco-Networks-40406PAC-MAN-PAC-MAN-Do... for instance, put there as recently as 2010), and the general IP is alive and well. (New games, and a new Pac-Man 3D cartoon is already in production for airing in 2013.) Namco has in the past sent cease & desist or DMCA takedown letters to websites hosting clones of their IP (here's a story of but one, again from 2010: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/17081510430.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/17081510430.shtml), if you bet they don't care you're going to lose that bet. Besides the original by itself there's also lots of collections that are sold fairly often (every year? at least every few years) that Pac-Man comes with. If you're arguing that "apparent recent interest by the IP owner" is the moral basis (obviously not the legal basis) for ripoffs, then you have to conclude that this Pac-Man clone, too, is wrong.
  - pooriaazimi 14y ago
    Thanks a lot for the info. I certainly didn't imagine, even in my wildest dreams, that an ancient game like Pac-Mac could possibly be still alive and a source of revenue for Namco. Pac-Mac game in 2010? 3D cartoon in 2013 (wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man:_The_Adventure_Begins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man:_The_Adventure_Begins)? I can't believe it. In that case, I was wrong and this game should also be "condemned" by HN :) Thanks.
wamatt 14y ago
>Here are the guys you are ripping off. Tōru Iwatani and his friends at Namco. Tōru is a very nice guy Do you Tōru personally? He could equally feel the opposite, happy his work is receiving renewed attention. I'm not sure any of us on HN even know the position of Namco or Mr Iwatani, or for that matter, whether they would be in agreement with each other. In fact, many creative people, do not align philosophically with corporations that represent them.

by Jach 14y ago

arn 14y ago

This is illegal too. I didn't bother posting again because it seems more obvious. In the previous example, many probably didn't know it wasn't an official port. (author added disclaimers later)

tylerneylon 14y ago
Is it morally wrong that this was created? I appreciate that this exists, and personally am more likely to purchase or promote official Pac-Man products because of it. I think it's a good thing. Legality is important, but underneath that is the purpose of law itself. I like the idea of keeping in mind both legality and the intent of the law. If you are making something cool, that adds value (including entertainment), and does not pretend to be, or detract from those you borrow ideas from, it seems ok to me. You may disagree with my particular idea of fair use - the main point is to promote thought about general morality, and not just condemn on the basis of legality alone.
- arn 14y ago
  So I presume that the person who made this knows it's "illegal" to use the pacman name and doesn't care. So that's fine, its not like I am not going to report him to whoever owns the ip. The previous example, a) it wasn't clear that the author knew it was not right b) the people affected where the type of people who would post to HN. Let me ask you this, do you see anything wrong with someone creating a hipmunk clone called "hipmunk.co" and use their exact CSS and HTML? It's the same situation. If you see nothing wrong with that, then that's where we disagree. Edit: there's no reason why he can't provide entertainment and value but just name it something else, and use original graphics. To clarify: no one is arguing against the creation of a game that plays the same. The argument is using the exact name and artwork.
  - akldfgj 14y ago
    hipmunk is not over 30 years old, though, and is not far older than the USA's originally agreed upon reasonably limited lifetime of copyright protection, before Disney lobbying created the never-ending copyright extension in the 20th century. So there's that distinction.

tylerneylon 14y ago

I enjoy seeing recreations of code like this. It's educational and fun, and this Pac-Man does not take anything away from the original. It's unfortunate that IP law is so vague and intimidating. It can easily have a chilling effect on innovation and creativity -- you're afraid something might not be ok, but you don't really know, so you just don't try. For me, that's a red flag in a legal system. Competition, creativity, and education are all great things that deserve clarity and protection, both as an original creator, and as someone adding value with the basis of past work.

wamatt 14y ago
Agree, esp. regarding creative suppression and intimidation. While one should respect the law, I do wonder how the GP can so factually and confidently, conclude the project's legal status. For example, only as recently as April 2012, did Namco Bandai choose to even register the trademark for "Pac-man" in Europe. In addition, Midway Games, who previously owned the distro rights in the USA, filed for Chapter 11 in 2009. I certainly have no clue as to it's status, but I do know there is often a digression between what a person thinks is illegal, the actual law, intepretation of the law, case law (e.g. precedents), politics of the law, pragmatic issues etc. Hence the reason we have lawyers, that understand these issues better (and even then, they often disagree with each other). There are also degrees of legality (civil, criminal etc) from jay walking, copyright infringement, patents to mass murder and genocide. Is Wikileaks illegal? Did Samsung illegally create certain Android smartphones? etc. Is <x> illegal?, does not seem like a simple boolean, for a wide range of values. The author of this project, is clearly a huge Pac-man fan, does not appear to be profiting financially (released the source on GH), and is generating interest in a product, that could be potentially be capitalized on by the rights holder.

guilloche 14y ago

I donot think that this application is illegal as long as the author did not use any original art work and trademark (if it still applys, trademark needs to pay to extend it, right?). 1. Any patents related to pacman expired already. 2. Copyright law does not forbid recreation of original games. The JS author just need to make sure all the code/art was created by himself. Please point out what is wrong about my understanding of the law system if there is any.

ghshephard 14y ago
I just played Ms Pacman for 10 minutes. It looks like they used all the original artwork and ghost behavior routines (Red, Pinky, Brown all do the right thing) - right down to the timing of the reversals around 5 and 20 seconds.

pooriaazimi 14y ago

It's not double standard IMO. You don't buy Pac-Man from namco anymore (I hope they've stopped selling it). So, nobody (much less them) gives a damn if it is being ripped off. Doodle Jump, on the other hand, is a game that you can (and millions do, every month) buy from the App Store. If you build a clone of it, the Lima Sky guys might lose some customers. That's why creating a Doodle Jump clone is wrong, but creating a Pac-Mac clone is not.

Jach 14y ago
People do indeed continue to buy Pac-Man from Namco (http://www.amazon.com/Namco-Networks-40406PAC-MAN-PAC-MAN-Download/dp/B003ZSIJA2/ http://www.amazon.com/Namco-Networks-40406PAC-MAN-PAC-MAN-Do... for instance, put there as recently as 2010), and the general IP is alive and well. (New games, and a new Pac-Man 3D cartoon is already in production for airing in 2013.) Namco has in the past sent cease & desist or DMCA takedown letters to websites hosting clones of their IP (here's a story of but one, again from 2010: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/17081510430.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100730/17081510430.shtml), if you bet they don't care you're going to lose that bet. Besides the original by itself there's also lots of collections that are sold fairly often (every year? at least every few years) that Pac-Man comes with. If you're arguing that "apparent recent interest by the IP owner" is the moral basis (obviously not the legal basis) for ripoffs, then you have to conclude that this Pac-Man clone, too, is wrong.
- pooriaazimi 14y ago
  Thanks a lot for the info. I certainly didn't imagine, even in my wildest dreams, that an ancient game like Pac-Mac could possibly be still alive and a source of revenue for Namco. Pac-Mac game in 2010? 3D cartoon in 2013 (wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man:_The_Adventure_Begins http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pac-Man:_The_Adventure_Begins)? I can't believe it. In that case, I was wrong and this game should also be "condemned" by HN :) Thanks.

wamatt 14y ago

>Here are the guys you are ripping off. Tōru Iwatani and his friends at Namco. Tōru is a very nice guy Do you Tōru personally? He could equally feel the opposite, happy his work is receiving renewed attention. I'm not sure any of us on HN even know the position of Namco or Mr Iwatani, or for that matter, whether they would be in agreement with each other. In fact, many creative people, do not align philosophically with corporations that represent them.