Steve Wilcox quote in latest 'Retro Gamer' mag

Mark R. Jones

On page 7, in a feature on his IOS Spectrum emulator, he is quoted as saying:
"The Android market has been 'poisoned' by a number of very shoddy Spectrum implementations that are fed by some illegal game file databases."

Do you think he's talking about 'Marvin' and it's link up to the 'World Of Spectrum' site? It's the only emulator on Android that links up to any database that I know of.

I don't think 'Marvin' is 'shoddy'. It's really good. And refering to WOS as an 'illegal game file database'??

Tut!

Sokurah

Mark R Jones wrote: »

On page 7, in a feature on his IOS Spectrum emulator, he is quoted as saying:
"The Android market has been 'poisoned' by a number of very shoddy Spectrim implementations that are fed by some illegal game file databases."

Do you think he's talking about 'Marvin' at it's link up to the 'World Of Spectrum' site? It's the only emulator on Android that links up to any database that I know of.

I don't think 'Marvin' is 'shoddy'. It's really good. And refering to WOS as an 'illegal game file database'??

Tut!

That probably IS what he's referring to. And the only shoddy thing is his business and he most likely just feels threatened by the emulator and WOS because it means potentially fewer sales. ;)

chev

Mark R Jones wrote: »

refering to WOS as an 'illegal game file database'??

I don't see how you can really argue with that description. For the most part, that's what the archive is. I've got no argument with WOS's preservation activities, but I think it should only make files publicly available for download where it already has permission from the copyright owner. WOS can't even claim to be operating in the grey area of orphaned works as for the majority of titles in the archive the copyright owner is known. Cue argument about copyright.

Sokurah

Hadn't WOS recieved more than 1000 permissions by now?
...I wonder if Martjin can give us some sort of so-many-games-are-allowed-out-of-so-many stats / permission-given percentage?

Matt_B

Marvin is far from shoddy, and that's the problem.

Elite's business only worked on iOS at all because it was a closed platform where publishing an unlicensed emulator was very difficult. That was never going to work on Android where, even if you can't always get them on the Play Store, unlicensed emulators with thousands of free games are very easy to install.

I'd guess that, rather than trying to close the door after the horse has bolted, they'll be looking at different products. There might be something of a market for enhanced re-makes of Spectrum games on Android, I suppose.

Pegaz

Unreal Speccy portable is another emulator linked to wos archive and its very good.
I still prefer Speccy and Xspectroid, mostly becouse better controls, and slightly smoother animation.

guesser

Sokurah wrote: »

Hadn't WOS recieved more than 1000 permissions by now?

There are an awful lot of files in the archive...
How many of the permissions on file are actually from the copyright holders?
Why is software available for download until it is "denienced"? It should be unavailable until permission is granted. etc etc.

WoS is certainly the most pro-active archive I've ever seen in terms of trying to get permissions etc. Most just stay underground and don't bother (after all for the most part no-one actually cares about this old rubbish and the copyright owners don't seem to even know what rights they've gained through all the buyouts and mergers).

Being better than the others isn't the same as being squeaky clean though.

AndyC

aowen wrote: »

WOS can't even claim to be operating in the grey area of orphaned works as for the majority of titles in the archive the copyright owner is known.

I'm not sure that's true. For the most part the precise details of the rights for most of the software is considerably more difficult establish. If it were quite so simple, I imagine you'd have a yes/no answer for pretty much everything in the archive by now (for better or worse).

Ivanzx

Knowing that WoS is a non profit page, with a lot of effort for free for many people and this Steve is just trying to get our money out of a machine that was dead commercially 20 years ago, there is just not much of color who is being shoddy.

guesser

AndyC wrote: »

I'm not sure that's true. For the most part the precise details of the rights for most of the software is considerably more difficult establish. If it were quite so simple, I imagine you'd have a yes/no answer for pretty much everything in the archive by now (for better or worse).

Surely Atari aren't difficult to find...

chev

Ivanzx wrote: »

Knowing that WoS is a non profit page, with a lot of effort for free for many people and this Steve is just trying to get our money out of a machine that was dead commercially 20 years ago, there is just not much of color who is being shoddy.

As I understand it, Pirate Bay is non-profit too. Your argument is irrelevant. Rights holders have the right to do what they like with their intellectual property, including charging for it.

rich_chandler

aowen wrote: »

As I understand it, Pirate Bay is non-profit too.

And how many current platforms does WoS have software for in it's archive?

chev

Sokurah wrote: »

Hadn't WOS recieved more than 1000 permissions by now?
...I wonder if Martjin can give us some sort of so-many-games-are-allowed-out-of-so-many stats / permission-given percentage?

I did a quick check. There are 232 permissions from actual copyright owners. With 24,017 titles in the archive that's a pretty low number.

chev

karingal wrote: »

And how many current platforms does WoS have software for in it's archive?

That's not relevant. The OP was trying to justify WoS's activity on the basis that WOS is a not-for profit. For the record, I think WOS has more in common with Google Books than the Pirate Bay, but you can't argue that hosting copyright material for download for which you do not own the rights is not against the law, because the law is what it is.

ZnorXman

karingal wrote: »

And how many current platforms does WoS have software for in it's archive?

Along those lines, how many ads does Pirate Bay have on its individual search-result pages vs how many are there on each WoS Infoseek search page?

EDIT: Well, ok, I see now PB changed how it works over there. Apparently now one needs a specialized downloader from them. But the question still stands for other "not-for-profit" torrent/DDC/etc distribution sites vs WoS.

Though I can see AOwen valid point, I don't agree with his comparison with PB.

aowen wrote: »

...For the record, I think WOS has more in common with Google Books than the Pirate Bay...

And this is a point I agree with, or rather that's how I view it, (and that point of view of mine is completely aside from any copyright laws).

rich_chandler

aowen wrote: »

That's not relevant. The OP was trying to justify WoS's activity on the basis that WOS is a not-for profit. For the record, I think WOS has more in common with Google Books than the Pirate Bay, but you can't argue that hosting copyright material for download for which you do not own the rights is not against the law, because the law is what it is.

It is relevant because we're talking about software which was released 30 years ago not yesterday. The damage to someone like Adobe cannot even begin to be compared to the damage to someone like Hewson.

Ivanzx

aowen wrote: »

As I understand it, Pirate Bay is non-profit too. Your argument is irrelevant. Rights holders have the right to do what they like with their intellectual property, including charging for it.

You have to take everything as a whole, not just the non-profit part. Its a non-profit effort about 20 YEARS OLD GAMES with a thousand or million proportion benefits (if any) than products released recently, which may be the case of Piratebay.
Of course, if the right holder of the, lets say Topo Soft wants to charge, he is in his right. The thing is that most of them dont even care about Spectrum games anymore (big companies), and individuals, I would say 99% are more than happy to see their works here and have a good feeling about it.

fog

such comments don't endear me to a software house. they might want to remember not to bite the hand that feeds / fed them , as they say..

are sales of denied games that I chuck on ebay any more than none denied ? far from it... from my point of view.. I think the ultimate games for example would sell regardless of their status.

fair enough there is the whole IP argument , but try getting a speccy from your local dixons / currys :)

look at the thing with commercial breaks with imagine / ocean.. where imagine lot "gobbed" off , while Mr ward took a far more measured approach to things. Who remained ?

of course slating the opposition as such , well.. says a lot..
I have elite / encore titles sitting on my shelf.. I've paid for em already! (just missing a phone etc :lol: )

chev

karingal wrote: »

It is relevant because we're talking about software which was released 30 years ago not yesterday. The damage to someone like Adobe cannot even begin to be compared to the damage to someone like Hewson.

I'm not comparing damage. 30-year old content is covered by the same copyright laws as contemporary content. Now I readily accept that copyright laws are in need of reform, but until that happens most of the archive material on WOS is illegally hosted. I'm not saying don't have the archive. I'm saying don't make it publicly available. There's no incentive to fix the copyright laws if people just ignore them when they feel like it.

Mark R. Jones

Referring to WOS as nothing but 'an illegal database' is disgusting when you think of all the work that has gone into it over the years by hundreds of people who wanted to preserve and keep the Spectrum alive, all in their spare time too. It's so much more than that.

Dispicable!

Pegaz

In other words, its allowed to keep all spectrum games, that arent explicitly denied.

or maybe, its forbiden to keep all the games, which arent officially allowed.

If we stick to the first principles, then piratebay also has a right to do their job.

In second case, WOS would be 100% legal, no gray areas, but he had only 232 titles in archive. ;)

So, Andrew is right, in legal terms.
Wos can not be half legal or half illegal. Just like that.

chev

Mark R Jones wrote: »

Referring to WOS as 'an illegal database' is disgusting when you think of all the work that has gone into it over the years by hundreds of people who wanted to preserve and keep the Spectrum alive, all in their spare time too. It's so much more than that.

Dispicable!

Except he didn't mention WOS did he?

chev

Pegaz wrote: »

In second case, WOS would be 100% legal, no gray areas, but he had only 232 titles in archive. ;)

Well it would be more than 232 as those are publisher permissions and therefore cover a number of titles. Also titles that were published by their authors where those authors have given permission would be included.

Matt_B

aowen wrote: »

Except he didn't mention WOS did he?

Perhaps not, but when it's the only on-line database that can be accessed directly from Spectrum emulators on Android, it's not really necessary to name names.

Mark R. Jones

aowen wrote: »

Except he didn't mention WOS did he?

No, but who else could he be on about?

rich_chandler

aowen wrote: »

I'm not comparing damage. 30-year old content is covered by the same copyright laws as contemporary content. Now I readily accept that copyright laws are in need of reform, but until that happens most of the archive material on WOS is illegally hosted. I'm not saying don't have the archive. I'm saying don't make it publicly available. There's no incentive to fix the copyright laws if people just ignore them when they feel like it.

Whats the point of an archive if no-one can access it?

Pegaz

Something like a museum? ;)

mheide

Does the count of permissions by Andrew also include the titles where the company doesn't object, but can't give a formal statement, like e.g. Elite Systems (original post)?

fog

that marvin guy must be a multimillionaire by now ;)

or perhaps.. they aren't and they are doing things for a right reasons / preservation and not for money


so did richard wilcox software have an official license *BEFORE* starting it, to make blue thunder ? just curious.. as it would have required rather deep pockets no doubt.

Pegaz

similar to piratebay.
They also do humanitarian work, provide a poor part of the globe to watch movies, play games and use expensive utilities. ;)

Timmy

Wow. That would be an interesting quote.

I would not be surprised that was a quote taken out of context.

I'm more interested in who interviewed him and in which context, also why the interviewer choose to include this answer. And if there were any communications between the magazine and the interviewee before it was published.

(Disclaimer: I haven't read the magazine as it can't be out here soon.)