I have no idea what you are talking about, groepaz.
copyright does not apply to a name, or game design, or gameplay mechanics. it only applies to actual assets of the game (the code, the graphics, the sound) - everything else could only be protected by a trademark, if it all. unless you register a trademark, anyone can name his game like yours, and he can copy the game mechanics no problem. what he cant do is take your code/graphics/sound.
Dude, our company has actually trademarked a game in US and EU.
I was referred to the cracking part. I have no idea how this is any relavant to the discussion.
groepaz wrote:how is that relevant? our company has trademarked stuff as well - so what?
You asked me if I know the difference between copyright and trademarking. Yes I do.
HF is a cracking group
Apparently they also do porting. Still I don't get your point. They did not crack my vic20 game and they are not going to crack my C64 game because I don't have any c64 games or intend to make one. In fact, none of my games even the commercial ones have any copy protection. Besides what's the point of a c64 crack group? Surely there haven't been any copy protections in c64 games in ages and the releases are so rare so cracking games would probably be the most boring pastime ever. Aren't commercial vic20/c64 games "pay if you want to support the developer" anyway?
Moloch wrote:His name is in the c64 port three times - that is enough
... and his name won't be added to the database unless he releases for c64 and is a scener
Is this is an official statement from csdb? Like I said in the mail you should be ashamed of yourselves.
Moloch wrote:His name is in the c64 port three times - that is enough
... and his name won't be added to the database unless he releases for c64 and is a scener
Is this is an official statement from csdb? Like I said in the mail you should be ashamed of yourselves.
The database lists people that are current or former sceners or have some connection to the scene. I assume you don't fall into any of those categories, correct?
I believe we've taken the appropriate action in this case; the entry will remain with hidden downloads.
Moloch wrote:The database lists people that are current or former sceners or have some connection to the scene. I assume you don't fall into any of those categories, correct? I believe we've taken the appropriate action in this case; the entry will remain with hidden downloads.
By your arbitrary rules I'm not given any credits on your site for the game I made? The source code of the C64 version is at least 90% directly my code. This is ridiculous. Somebody please talk sense to this guy. I'm outta here.
Moloch wrote:The database lists people that are current or former sceners or have some connection to the scene. I assume you don't fall into any of those categories, correct? I believe we've taken the appropriate action in this case; the entry will remain with hidden downloads.
By your arbitrary rules I'm not given any credits on your site for the game I made? The source code of the C64 version is at least 90% directly my code. This is ridiculous. Somebody please talk sense to this guy. I'm outta here.
This case was handled exactly how CSDb has handled legitimate copyright complaints in the past. The download is hidden and the complainant is satisfied. There will be no special actions taken in this, or any future, case.
Oh, now that you've slid on the code percentage, from 99% ("switching out screen code") to 90%, I'm wondering how long it will take you to admit a more realistic percentage?
You asked me if I know the difference between copyright and trademarking. Yes I do.
judging from your previous statement, you are confusing the two a lot. you dont have to state anything to make sure you didnt give up rights on the games name, or its game mechanics - because you dont have any such exclusive rights in the first place. and you dont have to state anything to make sure you dont lose the copyright on the code or music or graphics either - because you have those no matter what.
and no, that entry on csdb shouldnt show your name - because the database entries only show those people who have been _directly_ involved into a release. basically by stating that its non authorized, you made sure its not being shown =P you can call that arbitrary rules if you want, but its how it works. deal with it.
I'm just a Software Guy who has no Idea how the Hardware works. Don't listen to me.
What really bothers me, this entire thing could have been avoided if they had put forth more of an effort into contacting him first instead of going forward assuming everything was OK.
darkatx wrote:What really bothers me, this entire thing could have been avoided if they had put forth more of an effort into contacting him first instead of going forward assuming everything was OK.
That would have been the wise thing to do.
Overkiller did in fact have some communication with Petri before the port was started - he stated as much in his postings here. I get the feeling there was some misunderstanding on one side or the other.
In fact, its still on his Google+ page ... I'm sure he was notified of that last posting and didn't reply with a peep.
Also, for a guy that has some serious issues with others using his " intellectual property" he doesn't seem to have issues with using the Commodore romset in his "Eric-1" console he made in 2014 http://petenpaja.blogspot.com/2014/12/e ... ignal.html
... and before anyone rants how petty those two examples are - they are quite silly. Just as silly as the complaint that a c64 port of a vic-20 game, that has all resources available in a publicly accessible repo, might damage sales of Dex 2 on some other platform.
You are really trying dig hard to find something to badmouth me about, eh?
Your examples are utterly ridiculous. These are a 8-bit work in progress computer and a 8-bit console I built myself from scratch as a electronics hobby project. No-one in the world is using them. No-one is hurt. What HF did is very wrong, hurts my feelings and is very disrespectful towards my creation.
As for the G+ thing: I am a very busy man and get a ton of all kinds of requests (you know, I happen to be one of the authors of a video game series that sold quite some copies). I don't use G+ at all and it was purely by chance that I even noticed their first message trying to contact me through G+. The bottom line is no explicit license was given and would NOT have been given in any case without strict license that would allow me to control the quality and crediting of the port.
Why are you defending guys who stole my source code and are presenting my game as their creation, and why are trying to make me feel bad (and accomlishing that very well!) and trying to put me in a spot where I have to defend myself?