I agree, I suspect it is impossible to get 1000+ permissions. Even so something should have been in place before anything was announced as this is just getting embarrassing now.
I think it's about fairness more than anything. I have zero expectation of ever earning money from old speccy games. What I strongly object to is the idea that someone can sell these games for profit without compensating the original authors. I'm much happier with the free distribution of these games on WoS.
Plundering the WoS archive for profit isn't ethical. Getting permission for each game is fine but (I believe) more or less impossible.
This is what I was saying earlier. Take for example Red Heat. Does permission lie with Ocean? Or with the programmers James Bagley or Charles Davies? Is permission required from the person who wrote the music? Is it needed from the company that made the film? And as actor's likenesses are used, would Arnie or Belushi's permission be needed?
This is why it can be dificult for old tv shows to make it intact to dvd or to be repeated in full without any cuts. Also why many old tv programmes have the music played in the background changed to save having to ask permission or pay money to the band.
It also goes to show what a magnificent job the guys at WOS have done making such a site available , along with the greta debt of thanks we have to guys like John and Ste Pickford for allowing us to still enjoy the fruits of their labours.
Plundering the WoS archive for profit isn't ethical. Getting permission for each game is fine but (I believe) more or less impossible.
I think the problem is that, individually, each game in the archive is worth about 9/10ths of f**k all, but as a collection the whole lot is worth something commercially (perhaps not a huge amount, but definitely an amount).
There's no perfect way to reconcile this -- you can do what Alvin said and pay each copyright holder the few pennies each month that their individual contribution is worth, which seems a fairly pointless bureaucratic exercise to me, or just link to one or more archives (WoS isn't the only one) from the device itself as I suggested and charge for the hardware (Retro Computers Ltd, or whatever they are called, could even maintain an online archive themselves, of just the games they have received explicit permission to distribute, which could be the default option for the device).
I don't think game authors getting arsey about it is very helpful or practical. An approach of "well at least some people may get to see, play and maybe even appreciate, some of these old games I wrote a gazillion years ago" may be more sensible. Without a device like this, those games are destined to be played by a gradually dwindling number of ageing geeks with emulators or ancient hardware that they've managed to keep going. Which is fine by me, as I'm one of those geeks; it makes no odds to me personally whether this device is a success or a flop.
I think it would be quite nice if it's a success though.
People that buy this will only be expecting about 30-40 games included and as long as they see about 5 they remember they will be happy.
some Ultimate titles
JSW - Manic Miner
some Ocean/US Gold stuff
etc
no need for 1000 games
As for the keys....again, it's a cheap TV console for quick plays
so not being able to play Lords of midnight or the Hobbit is no big deal.
Just get permission's for those 30-40 games and have a USB/SD card slot for other games downloaded by the user from the net...job done.
?30 for the console should do it.
The way to resolve this IMO is not to sell these game for commercial gain. Just don't do it. And don't promise 1000 games before you have the rights secured.
And if you want to get permission/rights don't use charity as emotional blackmail.
I don't actually think it's legally possible to establish ownership of most games. Companies went bust, rights might or might not have gone back to the coders/artists/musicians.
I don't know if I have any rights in my old games. I have been told that I do but I'm not sure how that can be worked out. Do I share (c) with the others on the team (I would think so) in what proportion? Totally impossible to work out now, 30 years later.
Really, the only sensible approach is to not sell these games commercially. And that's fine with me.
I think the problem is that, individually, each game in the archive is worth about 9/10ths of f**k all, but as a collection the whole lot is worth something commercially (perhaps not a huge amount, but definitely an amount).
There's no perfect way to reconcile this -- you can do what Alvin said and pay each copyright holder the few pennies each month that their individual contribution is worth, which seems a fairly pointless bureaucratic exercise to me, or just link to one or more archives (WoS isn't the only one) from the device itself as I suggested and charge for the hardware (Retro Computers Ltd, or whatever they are called, could even maintain an online archive themselves, of just the games they have received explicit permission to distribute, which could be the default option for the device).
I don't think game authors getting arsey about it is very helpful or practical. An approach of "well at least some people may get to see, play and maybe even appreciate, some of these old games I wrote a gazillion years ago" may be more sensible. Without a device like this, those games are destined to be played by a gradually dwindling number of ageing geeks with emulators or ancient hardware that they've managed to keep going. Which is fine by me, as I'm one of those geeks. Makes no odds to me personally whether this device is a success or a flop. I think it would be nice if it's a success though.
The sale of 1000 units at ?100 each within a week or so, when pretty much everyone has access to a mobile, laptop,tablet or PC to play them better (ie with a full keyboard and joystick) shows that yes, there definitely is money in those games.
If I'd wrote a game, and someone decided to sell it as part of a bundle without my permission, I wouldn't be too happy. I wouldn't really want to be paid but I'd like to be asked, especially if I was easily contacted (which many of the best programmers of the Speccy are).
Then again, let's be fair. They may have got permission, or they may be using legally available freeware/PD along with Sinclair's back catalogue. It's possible.
People that buy this will only be expecting about 30-40 games included and as long as they see about 5 they remember they will be happy.
some Ultimate titles
JSW - Manic Miner
some Ocean/US Gold stuff
etc
no need for 1000 games
As for the keys....again, it's a cheap TV console for quick plays
so not being able to play Lords of midnight or the Hobbit is no big deal.
Just get permission's for those 30-40 games and have a USB/SD card slot for other games downloaded by the user from the net...job done.
?30 for the console should do it.
I agree. No-one wants a thousand games. They want a few that were well known but didn't get around to playing, they want a few that were their favourites back in the day, easily playable on the telly. And many probably also want a Sinclair branded product.
Get permssion to put JSW and MM on there. Stick some Sinclair titles on and maybe get permission to put a few of the newer Speccy games that make use of the upgraded features. All that would be pretty easy and fairly cheap to do.
Then if anyone wants to download other Speccy games they can do so with the full permission (as far as that is possible) on sites like WOS. It helps to keep the games alive, it helps to keep the site alive , it helps to keep emulation alive (as some people will be new to it). It's all good, and everyone's happy.
The sale of 1000 units at ?100 each within a week or so, when pretty much everyone has access to a mobile, laptop,tablet or PC to play them better (ie with a full keyboard and joystick) shows that yes, there definitely is money in those games.
The bulk of the value can't be the games. You couldn't charge ?100 for a CD-ROM containing a 1000 speccy games, even if it included all the "big" Ultimate/Codemasters/etc. games. Look at the new version of Dizzy that CodeMasters released for android - they have only persuaded 5000 people to buy that at ?1.49 in the years since its release, and that is a new, up-to-date, larger, version with full-colour graphics and MP3 sound, not a crappy old pseudo-colour 48K game running on a 3.5MHz CPU with scratchy a beeper tune.
If I'd wrote a game, and someone decided to sell it as part of a bundle without my permission, I wouldn't be too happy. I wouldn't really want to be paid but I'd like to be asked, especially if I was easily contacted (which many of the best programmers of the Speccy are).
Yes, I agree they should get permission where possible for any games shipped with the device. It's the right thing to do. And that appears to be what they are doing.
The bulk of the value can't be the games. You couldn't charge ?100 for a CD-ROM containing a 1000 speccy games, even if it included all the "big" Ultimate/Codemasters/etc. games. Look at the new version of Dizzy that CodeMasters released for android - they have only persuaded 5000 people to buy that at ?1.49 in the years since its release, and that is a new, up-to-date, larger, version with full-colour graphics and MP3 sound, not a crappy old pseudo-colour 48K game running on a 3.5MHz CPU with scratchy a beeper tune.
Yes, I agree they should get permission where possible for any games shipped with the device. It's the right thing to do. And that appears to be what they are doing.
It will be interesting to see what the demographic is for those who bought the Vega. Is it people who had never wanted to enter into (or were unaware of) emulation , thinking 'great, I'd love to play JSW again after all these years' , or is it retro enthusiasts/collectors looking for a piece of memorabilia. I also think the 'Sinclair' logo has probably added a significant amount to the interest.
Whatever the reason, it's great to see so much interest still being shown, and presumably paves the way for more of the same.Will something similar for the C64 follow?
If you strongly believe that people really care (enough people to fund a project) talk to the ZX Uno team and propose crowd funding an ASIC version. It's already FPGA proven and probably won't take much more to turn into an ASIC.
You see.... I'm taking a Master in Nanometric Device Design and Applications. My task this week is to design a simple electronic device capable of generating pseudo random numbers with some additions, and synthetise it into an ASIC using UMC 0,13 micron technology :o (won't going to actually manufacture it, only do all the steps to get the masks and so)
I'm wondering if they will let me do the same with the ZX-Uno (or at least, the ULA part of it) using the same technology. I'd love to see a rendered layout of how a modern ULA for the Spectrum could be :)
Yeah the problem is the product's value depends in part on the games included. This is a commercial product making money from the IP of commercially released software.
The software emulation thing is different. Much (but not all) sw on WOS is being made available with copyright holders' permission, as far as that can be determined, but that permission is extended to WOS only. They do this as a favour to the community and because their efforts are not being exploited for profit and would otherwise be forgotten. Most emulators are free so there is no profit being made there; in the cases where emulators are not free, it is clear the payment is for the emulator itself as free alternatives are available.
If Vega doesn't include any games without proper permission (and I still think it won't), then Vega will be no different than commercial software emulators like Spectaculator and Speccy.
In these cases, someone is making money from a product whose value largely depends on programs people can download for free somewhere else. In these cases, the payment is for the emulator itself as free alternatives are available (such as connecting your own laptop to the TV and running ZX Spin). In these cases, it's somewhat unfair to original Speccy developers.
I also think 1000 games being reached with permissions might be difficult and I'm wondering if they were considering to lie in the same grey-area limbo as some of WOS is sitting in.
They cannot. WoS is non-profitable (it doesn't even have adds) and it immediately removes available titles at IP owner's request. Vega is a commercial product and someone would need to visit every buyer's home to physically modify Vega whenever there's an IP owner request.
If they were thinking of making donations to charity in lieu of being able to find IP holders on a for-profit device that depends in some way on that IP for its value, that might be suspect ground.
It would not be suspected ground. It would be plain illegal.
I believe they are offering charity donations mostly as an attempt to reduce disputes over ownership (people are less likely to complain about their share on money that went to charity), to avoid the nightmare of dealing with 1,000 "micro payments", and to get IP owner's sympathy (offering 10% of their sales to charity may sound more convincing than offering to buy each game for 1/1000 of 10%, I guess).
What I mean is, I believe they are offering charity donations to help them get permissions, not to avoid getting permissions.
Anyway I sympathize with jpickford -- I don't think it's fair to tell developers they must donate to charity or withdraw permission. I think I would go another way -- set aside x% of sales to software IP and divide that among the number of games included. Write a cheque for each game to the IP holder. I doubt it will be a lot but at least the IP holders can do what they want with the cash.
I fully understand and sympathize with jpickford also. And I think he's right to complain.
But let's take a look at the other side of the coin. Amaurote is one of my top 10 favorite Speccy games. What the Vega team would have to do to license it properly? Nobody knows.
I have one proposition for the Vega Team: make a call for all speccy programmers out there to make, or adapt one game of their catalog, to work with the Vega and give Retro Computers license to include it into the Vega flash memory. In return, they will receive a Spectrum Vega console and a signed written copy of the "How did we do the Vega" book.
I have stayed out of this Vega debate for the very same reason I stayed out of the abortion that was Elite Systems fly-by-night fleecing!
weather you agree with copyright or not, it has to be done legally and fairly.
I don't see the "Vega" doing this IMHO, whom ever is in charge of this department needs to reconsider alienating copyright holders or they will be issued cease and desists in the very least and an expensive (more than ?100,000) class action court battle.
I know we have "one of our own" involved in the project, from his work and talent I am very (forgive me if I am condescending) proud of his efforts.
By and large, collectors are not interested in playing Spectrum games - they'd rather keep them to themselves and not break the seals/cellophane etc. They're not Spectrum enthusiasts, they're sad broken old men indulging their OCD personality disorders.
I don't see the "Vega" doing this IMHO, whom ever is in charge of this department needs to reconsider alienating copyright holders or they will be issued cease and desists in the very least and an expensive (more than ?100,000) class action court battle
Again, I doubt they ever considered piracy (i.e alienating copyright holders).
Again, I doubt they ever considered piracy (i.e alienating copyright holders).
Its good to read you my friend, its been a while ;)
Personally I avoid using terms like "piracy" as this implies a criminal matter and nothing could be further from the truth as "copyright infringement" is a civil matter. Those companies and or institutions that use this terminology either do not know anything about copyright law or more specifically attempt to obfuscate matter in a criminal light for further gain.
All to often we see companies assume copyrighted works where they have no legal recourse to do so.
Even I have been on a very strange end of this with a couple of youtube videos I posted last year, an overview of using a spectrum equipped with a hard-disk device.
All was my own work, yet UMC attempted to claim copyright of my work, in doing so, it was instantly monetized with adverts and banned in Germany.
I have to admit it was a very fraught handful of weeks sorting out that legal litany!
While I do not agree with the lengths of time granted to copyright, it is only fair that everyone plays by the same rules, releasing any product with a 1,000 pieces of other peoples work without sorting out copyright licenses before hand seems to me a bit of an afterthought.
I find the "we give 10% of sales / profits to charity" a bit distasteful, because its not their money to "give" away and lest be said as a copyright holder if you do not agree to sponsor a given charity.
That's just my opinion, and like butt-holes everyone has one =)
releasing any product with a 1,000 pieces of other peoples work without sorting out copyright licenses before hand seems to me a bit of an afterthought.
I still don't think they will include any game they didn't sort out copyright licenses. And I have no idea why people is now assuming otherwise.
I find the "we give 10% of sales / profits to charity" a bit distasteful, because its not their money to "give" away and lest be said as a copyright holder if you do not agree to sponsor a given charity.
Yes, it's somewhat unfair. But an IP owner that doesn't like the idea can simply ignore their request.
Its good to read you my friend, its been a while ;)
Personally I avoid using terms like "piracy" as this implies a criminal matter and nothing could be further from the truth as "copyright infringement" is a civil matter.
This is true for personal copying of games. Commercial 'piracy' *is* a criminal offence.
I still don't think they will include any game they didn't sort out copyright licenses. And I have no idea why people is now assuming otherwise
Here's why I'm making that assumption. When I asked them not to use any of my work they asked for a list of games so they didn't include any by accident. That suggested to me that they weren't getting explicit permission for each game. Hopefully, that isn't the case.
Here's why I'm making that assumption. When I asked them not to use any of my work they asked for a list of games so they didn't include any by accident. That suggested to me that they weren't getting explicit permission for each game. Hopefully, that isn't the case.
They might just want to play it safe in case multiple people come forward claiming rights to the same games.
It might be pretty clear cut with yours, but I'd imagine that there'll be a fair few cases where games were written by salaried programmers for companies which retained the copyright, and subsequently were taken over, merged and/or went bust; with any paperwork long since consigned to a shredder, nobody would have a clue.
Well yes it is very muddy. But the playing it safe doesn't make that much sense. If they track down my old employer and somehow get a clear cut contract to publish a game - would they really remove it from the list because I object?
I suspect there's been enough fuss about this now for them to at least step carefully. I think their best bet is to include a far smaller number of games and get proper agreements in place for those. Maybe even (crazy as it sounds) pay for them.
My apologies if my statement seemed to insinuate they that have not completed all their licensing, from the 15 or so pages it seemed that some copyright holders were backing out or still being asked.
I could of read the thread wrong and my deepest apologies for that.
This is true for personal copying of games. Commercial 'piracy' *is* a criminal offence.
I am afraid I do not agree with you, from my studies of copyright law within the UK it comes down to whom would prosecute the case - the state (criminal court) or an individual / corporation (civil court).
Being prosecuted by civil court and found in breach of copyright does not burden the person with a criminal record, although I am sure a serious monetary amount would be levied against the defendant.
Obviously there are some exceptions to this i.e. "counterfeiting", this is prosecuted by the State and as such is a criminal matter that caries some hefty sentencing.
I would be interested to know what other exemptions to copyright infringement that would remove it from a civil court matter to criminal court.
Well yes it is very muddy. But the playing it safe doesn't make that much sense. If they track down my old employer and somehow get a clear cut contract to publish a game - would they really remove it from the list because I object?
Probably. The chances are that they're trying to do this without a lawyer, and including a game where there's any sort of dispute - even if it would likely go in their favour - would seem more trouble than it's worth.
Besides, I doubt any contracts they'll find are going to be that clear cut.
I suspect there's been enough fuss about this now for them to at least step carefully. I think their best bet is to include a far smaller number of games and get proper agreements in place for those. Maybe even (crazy as it sounds) pay for them.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a change of tack, at least when it comes to putting the thing into mass production. People will be buying these things expecting to play the Spectrum's signature games, and they're the ones most likely to be refused under the current scheme.
My apologies if my statement seemed to insinuate they that have not completed all their licensing, from the 15 or so pages it seemed that some copyright holders were backing out or still being asked.
No, they have not completed all their licensing.
But there's still time. They are not releasing their product yet. And I don't think they will release this product with any game they didn't complete licensing. Your original statement indicated otherwise.
Here's why I'm making that assumption. When I asked them not to use any of my work they asked for a list of games so they didn't include any by accident. That suggested to me that they weren't getting explicit permission for each game. Hopefully, that isn't the case.
But if they were getting explicit permission for each game, it would still make a lot of sense for them to ask this same question. For instance when it's not clear who owns a particular game, one person approves it and another denies it, they can avoid using it just to be safe.
So I don't think we can deduce anything from this fact.
I am afraid I do not agree with you, from my studies of copyright law within the UK it comes down to whom would prosecute the case - the state (criminal court) or an individual / corporation (civil court).
Being prosecuted by civil court and found in breach of copyright does not burden the person with a criminal record, although I am sure a serious monetary amount would be levied against the defendant.
In the UK at least, deliberate infringement of copyright can be a criminal offense. It'll usually come down to a matter of volume and the level of profit being made (because that's usually a good indication you knew what you were doing).
Comments
This is what I was saying earlier. Take for example Red Heat. Does permission lie with Ocean? Or with the programmers James Bagley or Charles Davies? Is permission required from the person who wrote the music? Is it needed from the company that made the film? And as actor's likenesses are used, would Arnie or Belushi's permission be needed?
This is why it can be dificult for old tv shows to make it intact to dvd or to be repeated in full without any cuts. Also why many old tv programmes have the music played in the background changed to save having to ask permission or pay money to the band.
It also goes to show what a magnificent job the guys at WOS have done making such a site available , along with the greta debt of thanks we have to guys like John and Ste Pickford for allowing us to still enjoy the fruits of their labours.
There's no perfect way to reconcile this -- you can do what Alvin said and pay each copyright holder the few pennies each month that their individual contribution is worth, which seems a fairly pointless bureaucratic exercise to me, or just link to one or more archives (WoS isn't the only one) from the device itself as I suggested and charge for the hardware (Retro Computers Ltd, or whatever they are called, could even maintain an online archive themselves, of just the games they have received explicit permission to distribute, which could be the default option for the device).
I don't think game authors getting arsey about it is very helpful or practical. An approach of "well at least some people may get to see, play and maybe even appreciate, some of these old games I wrote a gazillion years ago" may be more sensible. Without a device like this, those games are destined to be played by a gradually dwindling number of ageing geeks with emulators or ancient hardware that they've managed to keep going. Which is fine by me, as I'm one of those geeks; it makes no odds to me personally whether this device is a success or a flop.
I think it would be quite nice if it's a success though.
People that buy this will only be expecting about 30-40 games included and as long as they see about 5 they remember they will be happy.
some Ultimate titles
JSW - Manic Miner
some Ocean/US Gold stuff
etc
no need for 1000 games
As for the keys....again, it's a cheap TV console for quick plays
so not being able to play Lords of midnight or the Hobbit is no big deal.
Just get permission's for those 30-40 games and have a USB/SD card slot for other games downloaded by the user from the net...job done.
?30 for the console should do it.
And if you want to get permission/rights don't use charity as emotional blackmail.
I don't actually think it's legally possible to establish ownership of most games. Companies went bust, rights might or might not have gone back to the coders/artists/musicians.
I don't know if I have any rights in my old games. I have been told that I do but I'm not sure how that can be worked out. Do I share (c) with the others on the team (I would think so) in what proportion? Totally impossible to work out now, 30 years later.
Really, the only sensible approach is to not sell these games commercially. And that's fine with me.
The sale of 1000 units at ?100 each within a week or so, when pretty much everyone has access to a mobile, laptop,tablet or PC to play them better (ie with a full keyboard and joystick) shows that yes, there definitely is money in those games.
If I'd wrote a game, and someone decided to sell it as part of a bundle without my permission, I wouldn't be too happy. I wouldn't really want to be paid but I'd like to be asked, especially if I was easily contacted (which many of the best programmers of the Speccy are).
Then again, let's be fair. They may have got permission, or they may be using legally available freeware/PD along with Sinclair's back catalogue. It's possible.
I agree. No-one wants a thousand games. They want a few that were well known but didn't get around to playing, they want a few that were their favourites back in the day, easily playable on the telly. And many probably also want a Sinclair branded product.
Get permssion to put JSW and MM on there. Stick some Sinclair titles on and maybe get permission to put a few of the newer Speccy games that make use of the upgraded features. All that would be pretty easy and fairly cheap to do.
Then if anyone wants to download other Speccy games they can do so with the full permission (as far as that is possible) on sites like WOS. It helps to keep the games alive, it helps to keep the site alive , it helps to keep emulation alive (as some people will be new to it). It's all good, and everyone's happy.
Yes, I agree they should get permission where possible for any games shipped with the device. It's the right thing to do. And that appears to be what they are doing.
It will be interesting to see what the demographic is for those who bought the Vega. Is it people who had never wanted to enter into (or were unaware of) emulation , thinking 'great, I'd love to play JSW again after all these years' , or is it retro enthusiasts/collectors looking for a piece of memorabilia. I also think the 'Sinclair' logo has probably added a significant amount to the interest.
Whatever the reason, it's great to see so much interest still being shown, and presumably paves the way for more of the same.Will something similar for the C64 follow?
You see.... I'm taking a Master in Nanometric Device Design and Applications. My task this week is to design a simple electronic device capable of generating pseudo random numbers with some additions, and synthetise it into an ASIC using UMC 0,13 micron technology :o (won't going to actually manufacture it, only do all the steps to get the masks and so)
I'm wondering if they will let me do the same with the ZX-Uno (or at least, the ULA part of it) using the same technology. I'd love to see a rendered layout of how a modern ULA for the Spectrum could be :)
If Vega doesn't include any games without proper permission (and I still think it won't), then Vega will be no different than commercial software emulators like Spectaculator and Speccy.
In these cases, someone is making money from a product whose value largely depends on programs people can download for free somewhere else. In these cases, the payment is for the emulator itself as free alternatives are available (such as connecting your own laptop to the TV and running ZX Spin). In these cases, it's somewhat unfair to original Speccy developers.
They cannot. WoS is non-profitable (it doesn't even have adds) and it immediately removes available titles at IP owner's request. Vega is a commercial product and someone would need to visit every buyer's home to physically modify Vega whenever there's an IP owner request.
It would not be suspected ground. It would be plain illegal.
I believe they are offering charity donations mostly as an attempt to reduce disputes over ownership (people are less likely to complain about their share on money that went to charity), to avoid the nightmare of dealing with 1,000 "micro payments", and to get IP owner's sympathy (offering 10% of their sales to charity may sound more convincing than offering to buy each game for 1/1000 of 10%, I guess).
What I mean is, I believe they are offering charity donations to help them get permissions, not to avoid getting permissions.
I fully understand and sympathize with jpickford also. And I think he's right to complain.
But let's take a look at the other side of the coin. Amaurote is one of my top 10 favorite Speccy games. What the Vega team would have to do to license it properly? Nobody knows.
Yet again let's make it clear:
Freeware is not the same as public domain.
It's illegal to distribute freeware games without IP owner's permission.
Did you notice that your suggestion in post #308 this morning was the same I suggested in post #79 in the same thread 5 days earlier?
Now I have proper evidence that nobody reads my posts! :)
weather you agree with copyright or not, it has to be done legally and fairly.
I don't see the "Vega" doing this IMHO, whom ever is in charge of this department needs to reconsider alienating copyright holders or they will be issued cease and desists in the very least and an expensive (more than ?100,000) class action court battle.
I know we have "one of our own" involved in the project, from his work and talent I am very (forgive me if I am condescending) proud of his efforts.
Damn it Dunny!!!
Stop creeping by my window!!!
;)
Again, I doubt they ever considered piracy (i.e alienating copyright holders).
Its good to read you my friend, its been a while ;)
Personally I avoid using terms like "piracy" as this implies a criminal matter and nothing could be further from the truth as "copyright infringement" is a civil matter. Those companies and or institutions that use this terminology either do not know anything about copyright law or more specifically attempt to obfuscate matter in a criminal light for further gain.
All to often we see companies assume copyrighted works where they have no legal recourse to do so.
Even I have been on a very strange end of this with a couple of youtube videos I posted last year, an overview of using a spectrum equipped with a hard-disk device.
All was my own work, yet UMC attempted to claim copyright of my work, in doing so, it was instantly monetized with adverts and banned in Germany.
I have to admit it was a very fraught handful of weeks sorting out that legal litany!
While I do not agree with the lengths of time granted to copyright, it is only fair that everyone plays by the same rules, releasing any product with a 1,000 pieces of other peoples work without sorting out copyright licenses before hand seems to me a bit of an afterthought.
I find the "we give 10% of sales / profits to charity" a bit distasteful, because its not their money to "give" away and lest be said as a copyright holder if you do not agree to sponsor a given charity.
That's just my opinion, and like butt-holes everyone has one =)
I still don't think they will include any game they didn't sort out copyright licenses. And I have no idea why people is now assuming otherwise.
Yes, it's somewhat unfair. But an IP owner that doesn't like the idea can simply ignore their request.
This is true for personal copying of games. Commercial 'piracy' *is* a criminal offence.
Here's why I'm making that assumption. When I asked them not to use any of my work they asked for a list of games so they didn't include any by accident. That suggested to me that they weren't getting explicit permission for each game. Hopefully, that isn't the case.
They might just want to play it safe in case multiple people come forward claiming rights to the same games.
It might be pretty clear cut with yours, but I'd imagine that there'll be a fair few cases where games were written by salaried programmers for companies which retained the copyright, and subsequently were taken over, merged and/or went bust; with any paperwork long since consigned to a shredder, nobody would have a clue.
I suspect there's been enough fuss about this now for them to at least step carefully. I think their best bet is to include a far smaller number of games and get proper agreements in place for those. Maybe even (crazy as it sounds) pay for them.
My apologies if my statement seemed to insinuate they that have not completed all their licensing, from the 15 or so pages it seemed that some copyright holders were backing out or still being asked.
I could of read the thread wrong and my deepest apologies for that.
@JPickford
I am afraid I do not agree with you, from my studies of copyright law within the UK it comes down to whom would prosecute the case - the state (criminal court) or an individual / corporation (civil court).
Being prosecuted by civil court and found in breach of copyright does not burden the person with a criminal record, although I am sure a serious monetary amount would be levied against the defendant.
Obviously there are some exceptions to this i.e. "counterfeiting", this is prosecuted by the State and as such is a criminal matter that caries some hefty sentencing.
I would be interested to know what other exemptions to copyright infringement that would remove it from a civil court matter to criminal court.
Probably. The chances are that they're trying to do this without a lawyer, and including a game where there's any sort of dispute - even if it would likely go in their favour - would seem more trouble than it's worth.
Besides, I doubt any contracts they'll find are going to be that clear cut.
Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if there's a change of tack, at least when it comes to putting the thing into mass production. People will be buying these things expecting to play the Spectrum's signature games, and they're the ones most likely to be refused under the current scheme.
No, they have not completed all their licensing.
But there's still time. They are not releasing their product yet. And I don't think they will release this product with any game they didn't complete licensing. Your original statement indicated otherwise.
But if they were getting explicit permission for each game, it would still make a lot of sense for them to ask this same question. For instance when it's not clear who owns a particular game, one person approves it and another denies it, they can avoid using it just to be safe.
So I don't think we can deduce anything from this fact.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-offences/intellectual-property-offences
Also, Class Action is a US term. :p
In the UK at least, deliberate infringement of copyright can be a criminal offense. It'll usually come down to a matter of volume and the level of profit being made (because that's usually a good indication you knew what you were doing).
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/intellectual_property_crime/