Lucas Confuses ScummVM With Abandonware 234
Anonymous Coward writes: "Seems LucasArts finally noticed ScummVm although they seem to be confused about what it is.
ScummVM is a 'virtual machine'(yes like Java) that allows you to play scumm games (Monkey Island, for example) in modern OS (Linux, BSD, err Windows XP) and weird machines like PDAs and the Dreamcast, but Lucas have confused them with an abandonware site."
Perhaps (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Perhaps (Score:1)
You mean men like David Miller, Alan Cox, Al Viro, etc... :-)
Ha ! (Score:1)
has anyone come up yet with a DNA test ? My guess is George isn't the cute boy he pretends to be !
Original software still required (Score:3, Informative)
An unfortunately oversight on the part of the ScummVM representative, was the failure to mention that to use ScummVM you still require the original (LucasArts) software!
Had this be pointed out, along with the fact that ScummVM extends the accessibility of the original software beyond its original platform, it may make it less likely that the lawyers will respond with tougher measures.
Re:Original software still required (Score:1)
Re:Original software still required (Score:3, Interesting)
I was considering pointing out that everyone does not necessarily win. In particular, LucasArts.
A number of gaming companies (EA in particular) have percesuted AbandonWare sites precisely because they intend to improve and rerelease old classics for newer architectures - in effect doubling the life (and revenue) of the product.
On the Copyright side this is particularly sad: Copyright was never intended as a tool to allow owners to prevent access; it was intended to allow the owner to benefit (financially) from the work during its useful lifetime. But there are no provisions in Copyright law which force material to be placed in the public domain when it is no longer being used (or even when Copyright expires!).
Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:4, Interesting)
My point was not that it does not become public domain, but that there is no explicit legal requirement for the release of the material to the public.
That is to say, when (if) Disney's Copyright on Micky Mouse expires, there is no legal requirement that they hand over their Micky Mouse archives (or a copy thereof) to some sort of public institution. If you happen to HAVE a copy - sure, go ahead and copy it. But getting your hands on it may not be such a simple matter.
Abandonware is a case in point. Many games available on Abandonware sites do not exist somewhere in corporate archives, because the game companies simply went under -- there was no sale of assets, not buy-out by a bigger company. Just a quite whimper. Even though there was a threat (to society) of that information being lost forever ... there was no attempt or requirement to make it public.
Talking about software specifically, where is there any implication or requirement for (say) the source code to be made public? Simple, there isn't. No more than an author could be expected to make his/her notes public when Copyright expires (okay, this would be posthumous anyway).
So here you have the basis of the problem: Copyright is a LEGAL measure to prevent you from distributing something; but when Copyright expires you have no LEGAL resource to FORCE distribution. If the (elapsed) owner simply doesn't make a copy available, you can't force him to.
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
Except that your point is wrong. In the US to be able to claim certain damages in a copyright suit you must have registered your copyright and sent 2 copies to the US Copyright Office.
That is to say, when (if) Disney's Copyright on Micky Mouse expires, there is no legal requirement that they hand over their Micky Mouse archives (or a copy thereof) to some sort of public institution.
Do you consider the Library of Congress to be "Some sort of public institution?" There is no requirement that any creative works be published, but if they are and the author has a registered copyright there are two copies of the work at the LOC.
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
In most cases. The Library of Congress doesn't have archives of early film, though, as nitrate film was too volatile for them to store.
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
A valid point ... but does the LoC store computer games ...?
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
I believe there should be a distinction drawn between Copyright over published worked, and intrinsic Copyright on unpublished works. If (say) Disney publishes something, and 70 years later their Copyright expires but no copies can be found in the hands of the public, Disney should be forced to provide the work as published, at least to a couple of public institutions.
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
You're talking specifically about America. Most countries have a national library to which you need to submit any book which is published *with an ISBN*. "Home publishing", games, music, movies etc. are not submitted to some sort of central repository in most countries. In line with WIPO treaties, you don't HAVE to register copyright to enjoy its protection, not even in the US.
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
In many countries there is no requirement to submit works to the national library unless they are "formally published"; that means they have been assigned a unique number (like a bar code or ISBN). There is also often no requirement to submit non-text works. This actually has nothing to do with copyright, but to do with archives for public access.
WIPO's rules call for the recognition of authorial copyright - if you are the author of a work, you automatically enjoy copyright protection. There is no need to register that copyright, it simply exists. If you publish the work, you need to put a valid copyright declaration on it (which must be either the word "Copyright" or the copyright symbol [ (C) isn't valid! ], followed by the date of publication OR a date range indicating the first publication and the most recent publication, followed by the identity of the copyright holder.
When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the author to prove that their work predates any work the claimant can prove. Copyright registries are primarily meant to solve this issue, but many countries don't have them. One recommended method is to post yourself a registered mail containing the copyright work, or significant parts thereof, and not to open that mail. Registered mail (in case you have a different term) is stamped, logged and tracked at every sorting office it passes through, and the fact that it is sealed is stamped and signed.
If there is every a contesting of Copyright, you can produce the unopened mail, which proves the date at which you had the full work (which should be before you publish it ;) ). Once produced in court, the court records can achieve the same ends in terms of proving the date.
Re:Copyright expired = Public Domain (Score:2)
South Africa (where I come from). There is no need to, and in fact no WAY to, register a copyright (except for films). There is no copyright office or the like, only a patent office. Reference: Department of Trade and Industry (SA) [dti.gov.za]
Collecting damages involves proving that you are in possession of the original copy of the work, which is most easily done by proving that you had the complete work before the first publication. I don't have a legal reference, but I have associations with two successful Copyright defendants.
WIPO's rules require that all signatory countries enact legislation to recognise only: the WORD "Copyright", the copyright symbol (and bracket-c-bracket is specifically excluded in recent WIPO commentaries, but can be recognised by individual countries if they choose to), AND THEY DO NOT REQUIRE COPYRIGHT TO BE REGISTERED.
I don't have a reference for the symbol vs. (C) commentary, but according to this article [zetnet.co.uk], this article [jmu.edu], and in particular this article from the Library of Congress [loc.gov] you haven't done your research. Or you can read from the Berne Convention [cornell.edu] itself. In particular take note of the line "Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin", as well as references in all three articles to the registration requirement for claiming infringement being a purely US phenomenon, but that it may make it easy to claim damages in other jurisdictions. Registration can also take place at any time in a Copyright life!
1. The symbol © (the letter C in a circle), or the word "Copyright," or the abbreviation "Copr."; and, from LOC [loc.gov].
Rephase, your Honour. When copyright is challanged, the onus is on the challanged to prove that their work predates anything the defendant can prove.
Same effect. At long as I can prove I owned the work before you did, you can't possible own the Copyright. This is enough to get even a registration overturned in court (since you don't have to register a Copyright at the beginning of its life).
Only in the US, Canada and other countries where they HAVE registries.
No, this is why it specifically has to be registered mail, or the equivalent service, because they will not accept unsealed mail. Registered mail ensures that the mail is delivered and not tampered with. Or did you miss the bit about "containing the complete work"?
Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, section Copyright Registration. Note: "U.S. work", a sentiment borne out by the LOC page and other legal articles.
Thank you for playing, consider yourself WRONG. Insert brain to continue...
Re:Original software still required (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right that Copyright (as developed in the US Constitution as 'exclusive Right to their respective Writings') is not intended as a stick to beat the ass of society. However, you're referring to Copyright's purpose as if it were the goal. Copyright is not a goal, but a carrot to entice the ass of society to release their writings in the first place.
Justice O'Connor said in 1991, "The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but '[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts.'"
To advance the arts and sciences, one must actually release what you've written or discovered. Many authors won't release their writings without some assurance in the form of Copyright. Many discoverers won't release their discoveries without some assurance in the form of Patents. Both are intended as temporary assurances to promote the writers and discoverers to advance their arts and sciences.
Re:Original software still required (Score:1)
It was probably so obvious to the developers and community that it never occred to them that this point had to be spelled out.
But hey, I never knew that this existed! Perhaps I will play LOOM and the original Secret of Monkey Island on Linux now. Excellent!!
Re:Original software still required (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Original software still required (Score:5, Funny)
Young man, are you listenin' to me,
I said, young man, you should buy our "CDs",
But then, young man, you can't make mp3s,
'cause you've got to know this one thing.
Pirates steal all of our wealth,
So even if you keep your files to yourself,
We've paid millions for the DMCA,
And we'll make sure you're put away!
[da da dada dada da da]
You'd better not break the D-M-C-A.
Don't you dare piss off the R-I-A-A!
We'll own everything, soon you'll have to enjoy,
Or we'll DRM all your toys!
You'd better stick to the D-M-C-A
We 0wn the Feds so you can't get away!
We'll soon kill off Kazaa,
Then so you don't impeach,
We'll sell you files at "only" $8 each.
[etc]
Re:Original software still required (Score:5, Funny)
(And my excuse for other Australians is that I'm Tasmanian.)
((And my excuse for Tasmanians is that... oh never mind, it's probably from YOUR side of the family anyway)).
- James 'Ender' Brown
Lead Developer, ScummVM
Disclaimer: Neither ScummVM nor
The reply mentions that (Score:5, Informative)
The reply to lucas arts states:
We mean no ill harm to LucasArts, and it is well known that many people (at least 50 to my knowledge, although I am sure there are many more) have brought classic LEC games simply to play them using our software.
which clearly mentions that people purchase the original software to play using ScummVM. And...
ScummVM is a valid clone of the SPU engine, designed to facitiate the playing of LucasArts adventures on modern machines and operating systems.
Which I think also clearly states that ScummVM is a clone of SPU, and not the original engine, or any original game content.
Also their FAQ clearly states in section 2:
1. Do I need original CD or Floppy disks?Most definitely. ScummVM won't work without them. If you would like to buy these games, we suggest you browse Ebay. Do not ask the ScummVM team where you can download the full versions of Lucas Arts games. These requests will be ignored.
What else should they have done? A little "research" into the site would quickly have shown that this is not an abandonware site.
Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:5, Interesting)
While this would be true, it could still be argued (successfully) that the emulator would have a negative impact on potential future revenue of LucasArts products, such as a LucasArts Classics package for BSD.
There are 2 arguments that the scummVM ppl need to make. However, they only made one of these arguments.
1. ScummVM is an emulator, and was created using legally valid and sound reverse engineering techniques. (this agument they made)
2. ScummVM was created as an academic exercise in software and reverse engineering techniques. As such, ScummVM is not bound to the DMCA, or any other such laws, as it is considered a form of free speech, and is protected under First Amendment Rights.
-Dennis
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:2)
You don't have to argue (2) unless you are in the US ;) And unless I'm mistaken, the compatibility provision still applies.
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, I'm talking bullshit, and so is the laywer. DMCA doesn't cover this AT ALL, as the software in question does not have access control mechanisms that are being circumvented. Even if you would like to argue that it does, ...
So even if it can be shown that the DMCA applies, there is a legitimate reason (interoperability) for the creation of this software.
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:1)
Actually, it does. Monkey Island 2's copy protection is circumvented by ScummVM; you can type in whatever numbers you like and you get in.
Mind you, the .exe that comes with the CD version of Monkey 2 doesn't even show the copy protection screen, so that one might not stand up in court.
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:3, Interesting)
They could claim that they are simply selling their copyrighted game data and are providing the engine free simply as a service. Is this something the GPL would allow? Because if so, it would make the GPL a lot more attractive to game developers, who could release the engine for free and sell the actual game content, and stay in business.
But last I heard, clause 2b of the GPL definitely suggested that if a program has a GPL component, the entire program must be provided to third parties at no cost. Which kind of shoots this idea out of the water.
Here's clause 2b of the GPL, just for reference:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Any way we can get a ruling on this?
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:3, Insightful)
If LucasArts put scummvm.exe and sdl.dll on a CD, and have a source directory somewhere, they can fill the rest of that disk with whatever they like.
Actually manufacturing GBA carts might involve a royalty payment to Nintendo, but the GPL wouldn't be a problem.
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:2)
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Since this is a VM, wouldn't combining it with the content constitute normal use rather than being a derivative work? Looks to me like they would only be obligated to distrubute the VM freely
Re:Here's The Lawyer's Response (Score:2)
I guess I have to spell this out for the A/C's:
There are 2 primary things which LucasArts needs to show in order to have a viable lawsuit:
1) Trademark/IP infringement has occurred.
2) As a result of that infringement/trademark, the claimant has incurred direct revenue losses, or their potential for future revenue has been diminished.
Since LucasArts has a solid claim to #2, scummvm's reply should have been the following:
1) To state, very clearly, that the means by which they conducted their reverse engineering was a legally approved (e.g. stating court precedent) process.
2) To expand their umbrella of legal coverage (aka CYA) by aligning their project under the shield of academia.
Re:Original software still required (Score:2)
I wish this were true. Unfortunately, the perceived nobility or helpfulness of a copyright infringement does not free the lawyers from their responsibility. As explained to me by our attorneys when we were confronted with issues of how and where to protect ourselves with trademarks and copyrights, a copyright holder is required to make a reasonable effort to prevent infringement. Failure to do so weakens the copyright and may set a precedent that will be damaging in a different case. Hence, if the company perceives infringement, they essentially must pursue it even if they don't actually mind that it is going on.
For a real world example, our attorney used Kleenex and Xerox. Kleenex made little effort to combat the use of "kleenex" in the general lexicon; hence no one could sue you for saying "pass me a kleenex" even if you were referring to a box of Puffs. By contrast, Xerox aggressively (and largely successfully) combated the general use of "Xerox" as in "Xerox these papers for me." Hence, while still reasonably common, it is far from ubiquitous and Xerox retains the strength of its mark.
That said, I would much prefer if LucasArts had sent a letter that said, "here's a self-addressed, stamped envelope, and a licensing agreement. Sign the agreement and enclose a check for $1.00 and we're square," but that, I think doesn't happen. One hopes that ScummVM manages to make them understand.
-db
Confusion of Copyright and Trademark (Score:3, Informative)
Copyrights are automatic and do not need to be protected, Trademarks have to be applied for and do need to be protected.
Re:Original software still required (Score:2)
I don't think that was LucasArts (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I don't think that was LucasArts (Score:5, Funny)
Duh.
mmmmm.... chicken... (Score:1)
It's El Pollo Diablo! The giant demon chicken of Puerto Pollo! -- Captain Blondebeard
We don't need those Rebel Scumm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We don't need those Rebel Scumm (Score:2)
"You Rebel scum" was a line from Return of the Jedi, where Han, Leia, and Co. got caught infiltrating the shield bunker.
Yes, I am a Star Wars geek. (for Triumph to poop on)
Re:We don't need those Rebel Scumm (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Call off the dogs (Score:2)
Call off the dogs AND the trip to the Movies (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely right.
But a mental note to self that "Lucas sucks (even worse than his last two films)" when Slashdot starts promoting the low-rez sorinsen quicktime tailers for Episode III might be appropriate (in the next story, if
As an aside, one has to wonder what sorts of payola scams exist here, for a site the promotes free software and open source as this one does to constantly be promoting the wares of the one industry that has launched successful attacks against free software and its developers (unlike Microsoft).
Re:Call off the dogs AND the trip to the Movies (Score:2)
OK, so it was a Star Trek, not Star Wars, movie. Same evil industry, same point stands, and slashdot's hawking of the wares of an industry that is waging war not only on software freedom, but on freedom in general, continues unabated.
Re:Call off the dogs AND the trip to the Movies (Score:2)
What you might find about slashdot is that it is a community mad up of LOTS of people. many of which have varying opinions.
Allot of people who read this site LIKE star wars ALLOT. Allot of people who read this site have deep feelings about free software. But that doesn't mean that the site has to favour one group over the other. Like any large group of people, you will notice trends throughout the slashdot community, but it is also divided on many aspect. It seems pointless to criticise slashdot for it's apparent promotion of an idustry. The editors are just reporting thing that other people have told them about and that they think might be interesting. There is no slashdot conspiracy out there. Its just a bunch of people interested in a bunch of things with some common ground between them.
If you have issues with an industry, then good for you, but why criticise slashdot? The site itself does not proclaim any such issues, its just a place to go to read things you might be interested and share your opinions with others.
What WOULD help.... (Score:2)
The ScummVM guys could really use an editor! That email was chock full of typos and spelling errors! It was painful to read!
Re:Call off the dogs (Score:2)
Well said. Indeed, if you read the wording of Lucasart's email, it's insanely polite and non confrontational. It's the nicest bitchslap I've ever read. They are actually demonstrating goodwill, which I find infinitely preferable to the modern trend for merely asserting that you are acting in "good faith"... while you rip your opponent's jugular out in a pre-emptive strike.
If anything, we should be emailing Lucasarts, thanking them for their reasonable approach (so far), and asking if it's really true that we can buy (note buy) their back catalogue and then use scummVM to play it in modern or alternative hardware. And if not, why not? Everybody wins from this.
legal team (Score:1, Redundant)
We are contacting you to let you know that the SCUMM engine that is referenced on the site controlled by you (scummvm.sourceforge.net) is actually still proprietary to LucasArts Entertainment Company LLC ("LucasArts") and is not released under general public license as referenced in the FAQ section on your site
RESPONSE:
The RE techniques used are generally protected in most states under what is generally known as the 'compatability' clause. I'm afraid I am based in Australia and cannot quote the applicible US equivilents for you at this time, but I am certain the LEC legal team is aware of the appropriate sections of the copyright act.
Sounds like LEC's legal team needs to get it's act together!
Sounds like the work of a legal ASSITANT (Score:5, Informative)
This is a boiler plate letter. They had a legal assitant (billing rate: usually under $100. Pay rate: $15? plus overtime.) do the research on the web. Criteria: does this allow someone to play LEC games? If yes, fill in the blanks and send the letter. Charge the client. Go home happy.
Given the response, this may get boiled up to a summer associate (hasn't passed the bar but has somewhat of a clue regarding the law) (bill rate: $125) or (egads!) and associate (a *real* lawyer) (bill rate $150 min.) who will weigh the ScummVM developers claims and decide wether to persue.
If they investigate the research on the "applicable state laws" will be given to a Legal assistant or a summer associate and that will determine the amount of work necessary to determine if ScummVM is an actual infringement.
I'm not saying LEC is poor, but I doubt they will waste their money past here.
Any IP lawyers who would like to clarify?
Re:Sounds like the work of a legal ASSITANT (Score:2)
Where are your numbers from?
Mine are current as of this summer, prestigious DC firm prices. I know that in North Dakota a senior partner's time costs $150 an hour.
As for summer associates, same dc firm, and they get paid just under $50 an hour. But getting billed out at $400??!?! That's crazy!
Re:Sounds like the work of a legal ASSITANT (Score:2)
How so? They have to have some cognizance(sp?) of licensing issues, since they are accusing ScummVM of violating it. Perhaps the LA checked it over quickly with an associate and said "Hey, if they are using our ip (playing our games), can they lisence it under GPL?" Phrased that way, the answer is an emphatic NO! Also anyone can "claim" some ip to be under a certain license, but if you are a small time Open Source project, they may think you don't have the legal where-withall (again, sp?) to license your way out of a paper sack!
So I concede yes- this is tailored to the situation. However I think this was the IP lawyers having the assistants troll for work!
again- any real lawyers have any comments?
Looks like to me... (Score:1)
I suppose they are just going through the paces to make doubly sure. God forbid a 'few trinkets slip through their fingers'
com'on somebody just had too.
Cpt. Obvious
I don't get it. (Score:1, Redundant)
Oh it's George Lucas? Jeez, that figures. Of all of my old heros that could have died in a plane crash before they came back to haunt me, Mr. Perm has to top the list.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
The games aren't being manufactured anymore. LucasArts isn't getting money for the SCUMM games, anymore. The only person getting money is the guy that gave you his used copy of the game for $2.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Re:Makes your kid cry when their game won't workl. (Score:2)
Perhaps. It's all in the soundcard. Or, more accurately, the drivers. I actually keep a copy of Privateer, amoung other games, on my laptop, which, admittedly, runs win98, not XP. But I boots it into dos, and the yamaha sound chip in it has KICK ASS pure dos drivers for soundblaster 16(! not pro!) emulation.
That having been said, I also built a P120 with Awe32 for the games that use damn timing loops.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:1)
bbh
So what? (Score:2)
So what? I paid for my Indiana Jones game. It won't play on my G4. If someone writes software that lets me play the software I've already paid for, then kudos to them. Lucas can't stop them by saying "I was going to do that -- and charge!" If they make a classic games pack, I might buy it to get sound support and a newer version of The Fate of Atlantis. But claiming that a product that allows people to use LucasArts software may hinder their ability to sell a compatibility package or upgrade is pointless since there's nothing wrong with doing that.
OT: I actually ordered The Last Crusade for Mac because I had a 5.25" floppy version for DOS. Instead, I received The Fate of Atlantis -- before it was officially released. I was pissed because it wouldn't play on my black-and-white Classic II. I had to play it on the color Performas and LCs at school. When I finally got a color computer, the first thing I did was install the game. Since I got some weird early version of the game, I have it on floppies and it doesn't have spoken text for dialogue. I'd love to get the CD version that actually had spoken dialogue -- particularly since my G4 doesn't have a floppy drive.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
Of course, that's the only way this can hurt LA financially, and do they want the PR hit of saying "We'd rather charge people for the same product twice, thank you?"
Maybe everything is fine.... Maybe Not (Score:1)
Re:Maybe everything is fine.... Maybe Not (Score:1)
Thats why I myself didn't submit anything to slashdot yet. I'm waiting for their response, to see if they will just drop it... or take the long, tired road of a lawsuit. *sigh*
- James 'Ender' Brown
Lead Developer, ScummVM
ScummVM runs great on GNU/Linux-PDAs (Score:2)
My favorite part.. (Score:1)
Maybe it's just me, but i think that sourceforge knows this isn't abandonware.
Re:My favorite part.. (Score:3, Informative)
Roblimo himself sent a nice e-mail to me with suggestions (plus the warning that the site would vanish if I didn't reply to him in 72 hours).
I've asked SF not to remove it, as what the letter cites is on our site.. obviously isn't. We arn't distributing any software by LucasArts themselves on there.
- James 'Ender' Brown
Lead ScummVM Developer
Slashdot Troll of the Hour
Re:My favorite part.. (Score:2)
I'm serious by this: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Purely for the record"... thats great!
Their response should have emphasized the fact that you still need the original game files to play.
They're still going to get shutdown, even if its not totally legal. Lucasarts wants to be able to re-release their games with updated engines, and if someone is doing it for free, it cuts into their profits.
Look at Nintendo's new games that emulate NES games on the GBA. How much cooler would that have been if we already hadn't had nesticle for 6 years.
Not agreeing w/ them, I just know their POV.
Re:I'm serious by this: (Score:2)
:(
Doubtful (Score:2)
If LucasArts releases a new Monkey Island title, it'll obviously be a whole new game, with AI NPC's, an immersive 3D world, and so on. I don't expect they're too worried about competition from the pixely, 2D 10 year old original...
Re:Doubtful (Score:2)
Confused? So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I like Lucasarts (though I used to like it more), but you've got to realize that this issue with ScummVM probably won't make it past their lawyer department, who probably have all the technical aptitude of a pack of (three-headed) monkeys.
Lawyers are strange beings (Score:1)
The guys developing this are right of course but lawyers all too often are concerned about making money so its going to come down to whether they will go for money or do the right thing (tm).
Too bad the entire US legal system breaks down as soon as you have someone with lots of money but I digress. Win or lose the case, the lawyer still gets paid
LucasArts and Activision (Score:5, Interesting)
Once upon a time, there was a company that had a bunch of games that ran under a virtual machine. Eventually, people who loved those games reverse-engineered the virtual machine and wrote interpreters for the VM that ran on everything and anything, from Palms to BeOS to OS/2. And the company decided that that was okay.
The company was Activision, which bought up Infocom in the late 1980s. Remember all those Infocom text adventures? People reverse-engineered the virtual machine, known as the z-machine, and wrote plenty of z-machine interpreters, all of which are freely available. Activision apparently decided that this was fine with them, as long as the games themselves weren't being distributed.
Now LucasArts is in a similar situation. Will they be as calm about a new VM interpreter as Activision was? Sadly, I'm not so sure.
Activision, Coolness (Score:3, Interesting)
All of which is very cool of them. But not sueing people for writing virtual machines isn't coolness, it's just basic law. Infocom never claimed the exclusive right to implement the Z-machine specification, and probably couldn't have made that claim even if they tried.
Now, what I'd really like is to play is the original Zork. The one that the founders wrote for ITS [tuxedo.org] while students at MIT. No, not "Dungeon," that's an unauthorized port, with an incomplete game and flawed parser.
Re:Activision, Coolness (Score:2)
But not sueing people for writing virtual machines isn't coolness, it's just basic law.
Sure, but that's never stopped companies from suing those who do such reverse engineering. Heck, look at Sony versus Bleem. I'm sad that it's gotten to the point that I thank companies for doing what they're supposed to do, but here we are anyway.
Re:Activision, Coolness (Score:2)
Re:Activision, Coolness (Score:2)
I once bought a dumpware CD that had all the Ultima games on it. Was halfway through Ultima V when I was faced with solving a puzzle that could not be solved without the original game manual -- which was not provided. Worst of all, you couldn't save the game once the puzzle started...
The old saying is: (Score:2)
This has all the markings of a simple misunderstanding on LucasArts' part, and not a malicious assault. Once an understanding is reached (that is: 1. ScummVM didn't steal anything, and 2. ScummVM causes people to buy more LucasArts games) the two sides will hopefully see the light -- provided they work towards the goal of understanding each other together, and don't turn this into an antagonistic battle.
LucasArts and ScummVM stand to benefit from each other; ScummVM needs to work towards achieving an understanding with LucasArts. ScummVM's response looks like a good step in this direction.
It's Not the Size of the Ship (Score:5, Informative)
(IIRC, what Elaine had asked Guybrush in that screenshot was something like "What have we learned from all of this?" at the end of the game.)
Re:It's Not the Size of the Ship (Score:2)
Or the fourth line, for that matter.
The Burden of Proof (Score:1)
Actually, from the legal perspective it seems a lot easier to just send out a lot of letters to all those that thinks they are infringing on proprietary art. What this does, is makes it easier for the legal team. This is because it shifts the burden of proof on the accused (in this case the ScummVM team) rather than on the company itself (in this case Lucasarts) to prove what they are doing is not illegal.
Think of it this way. If you were paying lawyers to protect your intellectual property, would you rather them save money and not "deeply investigate" all claims when the same results could be accomplished by a cursory examination. If you are the big company of course you are going to take the cost effective route.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that the ScummVM has legally reverse engineered the original SPU engine. And I'm very glad, I love playing old Lucasarts game's that I have, like Monkey Island [floppy disk version] under BSD.
I would regret seeing such an interesting project shut down because of a misunderstanding.
No steenking lawyers.... (Score:1)
LucasArts just missed a great opportunity... (Score:5, Interesting)
I've also bought the Monkey Island 1, 2 and 3 pack, and the result with 1 and 2 is the same. Doesn't work out of the box, works, sort of, once you get the patch. The patch at least gets the game running, but the sound is decidedly dodgy. I don't even want to think about what happens to WinXP users...
But now there is ScummVM. All these games run better than they did in the first place, they run on machines and OSes that LucasArts never bothered with, and they run perfectly.
What LucasArts should do with ScummVM is write the authors a great big thank-you letter and start bundling it with all their old games. There's no reason why they shouldn't. Trying to shut down a project that's doing for free what you should have done a long time ago is just plain silly.
Re:LucasArts just missed a great opportunity... (Score:5, Interesting)
The only people who can override the Legal department are... Marketing.
Someone ought to get in touch with some of these people and show them ScummVM. Show them Monkey Island 2 running under the DOS .exe, as supplied at present, and then show them the same game running under ScummVM, with anti-aliasing and superior MIDI. Then show them the same game running on about three million different platforms. Show them Dreamcast Monkey Island. Show them palmtop Monkey Island.
Then tell them that this marvellous technology is free, tell them they can use it in any future reissues of these old games, that they don't need to pay anyone for the privilege.
Tell them that they can market it as 'Monkey Island Classics Deluxe' and double the price.
Then watch those lawyers disappear.
Worst is Yet to Come (Score:1)
I doubt they'll make a distinction between submitting original LucasArts software and reverse-engineered code, despite the provisions for RE in US copyright law. It's easy to envision them invoking the DMCA and arguing that the SCUMM opcodes are copyrighted IP and that SCUMMvm is a circumvention device.
I recall Nintendo and Sega using similar arguments to go after sites distributing console emulators.
Re:Worst is Yet to Come (Score:2)
True. That's why you can't find [emuhq.com] any console emulators [vg-network.com] anywhere anymore.
In a related Story... (Score:1)
Actually, this is probably in retaliation (Score:2)
As a curiousity (Score:1)
Why doesn't Linux just reverse engineer a couple of major MS programs and implement them in Linux (by reprogramming them). With the amount of support Linux has, this shouldn't be excessively hard.
Re:As a curiousity (Score:2)
For example, MS Word, Excel, Access, Powerpoint,
Wouldn't these be easier to reverse engineer and implement in a Linux structure, then the entire OS?
we geeks might make a better impression... (Score:1, Offtopic)
How hard is it to proofread a reply to an official legal request before clicking the "send" button? Remember that this reply could easily show up in court, where the judge could (even subconciously) use your mispellings and grammatical mistakes to bias the case against you. Same goes with CmdrTaco and Hemos and their constant misuse of "then" vs. "than" and "their" vs. "they're". You're supposed to be professional journalists, for crying out loud! Professional journalists have EDITORS!
Source Forge and Lucas (Score:2)
I bought these games because of SCUMMVM (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that LucasArts takes a step back and realizes the three most important things here:
1. You need the original games to play scummvm.
2. Scummvm lets people play lucasarts games on platforms that aren't supported by the original SCUMM
3. Scummvm was reverse engineered, and does not infringe on the original SCUMM engine.
You would think LucasArts would *like* more sales, freely implemented support for new platforms and happy customers. I really hope this is a genuine mistake.
Puts a halt to LucasArts cash grab...... (Score:2)
Re:Puts a halt to LucasArts cash grab...... (Score:2)
LucasArts has announced Full Throttle 2. I think they should encourage anything that will let them put Full Throttle 1 (and have any expectation of it working!) on that CD to distribute with the new game, but they may not agree.
-magic
GET THIS PROGRAM! (Score:2)
This is absolutely amazing.. the setup is a bit of a bitch to figure out (their readme is a bit obtuse), but once configured, the games run (as far as I can tell) flawlessly. Taking into consideration the much better MIDI support on my SBLive! card (the intro tune for Sam N Max is incredible) and the antialiasing, the games look as good as anything 2D I'd expect.
Even better is the ability to run them off the harddrive (back in the day my whopping 540MB woulda been filled with just Sam and DOTT). No more swapping CD's!
Fair use as well (Score:2)
So what this allows is for me to play these games on the same Macintosh I bought them for (A G3/266) without having to reboot my machine and kill my web server and other stuff I have running under Mac OS X.
LucasArts does not want these games to run on PCs (Score:2)
However, they might make money on handheld machines. Therefore, LucasArts would prefer their old games to be unplayable on modern PCs, so that they will appear fresh and exclusive when they are released for handhelds.
Do you believe in death after life?
PocketScumm is already here. (Score:2)
http://arisme.free.fr/PocketScumm/
Re:Spellchecking? (Score:1)
I didn't realise how many mistakes I had made until several hours later
Of course, that's not an excuse. Why explain myself?
- From the spellchecker of 'J Brown'
Lead Developer, yadda yadda.
Re:Gimmie a break...Look at the ScummVM site (Score:2)
They could be selling their classic games for a lot a platforms if they work with these guys. I think that would be a good deal for both parties...
Star Control 2 Linux native port (among others) (Score:2)
http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/
Looks like they'll be using SDL to pull it off, very cool.
If impatient, some good leads on buying the DOS version are here:
http://www.classicgaming.com/starcontrol/g
Running the classic with sound, best bet if you do not have an ISA soundblaster card is dosemu. There are Dosemu sound patches at the following URL that improve the accuracy of the sound emulation with games like SC2 with DosEmu, while not perfect, can be a stop-gap until the ports are officially released.
http://koti.mbnet.fi/lonnberg/DOSEmuSound.html