Square-Enix squashes another another fan project.

[BitVyper]

But really, it DOES if the person who OWNS the rights to the work says it does.

Er, no it doesn't. The person who owns it doesn't have the right to dictate reality. They have the rights to that piece of intellectual property. That doesn't mean that when they say it's being devalued, it's actually being devalued.

(or get sued).

As I said before; the spirit of copyright law has become pretty twisted. Being able to sue someone and being in the moral right are far from being the same thing.

Edit: And in all honesty, until I see someone actually ignore one of these C&Ds, I'll remain skeptical that Square would actually make it into a lawsuit. They might, but I'm doubtful.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Chrono Trigger's getting pretty old. The only manner in which Square is still profiting from it is through progressively crummier re-releases. A fan-made game is not going to impact the profits of something that happened well over a decade ago, nor is it going to affect the ability of Square to profit on making something new in the CT franchise. Someone taking a picture you drew, or a story you wrote thirteen years ago and making a fanfic based on it doesn't devalue your work.

Also; while you have the rights to your intellectual property, the original idea with copyright law is that you're not supposed to be able to ride one thing you made forever. The spirit of that law has been twisted a lot over the years.

Mickey Mouse is getting pretty old, too, you know. Disney is still using him. One could argue that because they're still using him to lesser and lesser purposes that he should be able to be used by other people by that logic.

Face it. If people didn't keep buying the remakes, Square wouldn't keep making them. They're making money off them, regardless of how you feel their quality has deteriorated.

If I make something, and I keep selling it, I keep making money off of it and it makes sense for me to protect it. If I'm still selling copies of a hit book after 20 years, I'm not going to let some upstart start passing around his own work based off of mine. If I paint the next Mona Lisa, I damn well want people to check with me first before making postcards of it. Artists have every right to protect their work. And when issues arise, you can bet your teeth they will.


Edit: Also, morality is relative. Business is much more consistent.

[Marc v4.0]

They have the right to say that it devalued their original work if that how they feel, or if they just want to lie and say so in order to sue someone or force them to stop. Either way, they have the right to do it.

Precedent. Doesn't really matter what the law says to the people who twist it if a jury of your peers and the court system goes with it.

[BitVyper]

Mickey Mouse is getting pretty old, too, you know. Disney is still using him.

Yeah, that's actually kind of part of the problem. There's a big chunk of copyright law that is commonly referred to as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act because Disney essentially bought it. They shouldn't actually have retained the rights to him (and many of their other properties.) for this long, but they've pushed and pushed for a bigger and bigger time limit until it's hit the point where they'll own Mickey after his creator's children (and maybe even their children) are dust. And I'm sure they'll be pushing for 200 years at that point. Disney is a good part of the reason copyright law has gotten as messed up as it is.

[Jagos]

Something relevant. I know we have a few Brazilian NPFers that could back up this article. But there was a time that Brazil had legal games.

Linkage

If businesses attack to harshly (Like EA with Spore) they'll lose revenue. Too soft, they lose face.

If I make something, and I keep selling it, I keep making money off of it and it makes sense for me to protect it. If I'm still selling copies of a hit book after 20 years, I'm not going to let some upstart start passing around his own work based off of mine. If I paint the next Mona Lisa, I damn well want people to check with me first before making postcards of it. Artists have every right to protect their work. And when issues arise, you can bet your teeth they will.

At the same time, our current laws allow for artists to continue to get paid on songs, movies, etc for 70 years plus the life of the author. No one is responsible for this upkeep, and it's fairly expensive to enforce. I'm not the smartest man in the world but things have changed significantly where these old revenue streams of publisher to author have dried up to a certain extent.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Yeah, that's actually kind of part of the problem. There's a big chunk of copyright law that is commonly referred to as The Mickey Mouse Protection Act because Disney essentially bought it.

So, you're suggesting that anyone and everyone should just be able to up and use something the company is still very much using and making money off of? Sounds like bad business to me.

I mean, as a person involved in many arts, protecting those arts has become very important to me. Otherwise, what the hell was the point? I could have just released the character ideas to the masses and said "have fun." These are things I'm personally involved in. Why shouldn't I be able to protect the ideas I've held with me for years?

[h4x.m4g3]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

But really, it DOES if the person who OWNS the rights to the work says it does.

If your saying it makes it illegal, then yes it does. If your saying it actually devalues the original work, then that really depends on a case by case basis, and most of the time its claimed it doesn't.

Making a work like this doesn't decrease the value of the original work (Chrono Trigger) nor does it directly harm any future work the original creator may come up with. I'll accept that it may indirectly harm a future work via comparison that is, whether the new work is as good/better then the fan-made one, but that's no different then comparing rejected versions of movie scripts to the final one, or fan-versions of movies. In actuality projects like this are more likely to drum up support for future works (and thereby increase their value) at no cost to the actual owner. Bad (and many m good)derivative works will fade as quickly as anything else not-noteworthy on the internet or be remembered in the vein of 'dear god this is so bad you have to see'. Does Freeman's Mind or Half-Life: Full Life Consequences destroy the Half-Life brand because their terrible? If someone made a free mod for those to be voice-overs in game, would anyone not buy Half-Life 3 because of them?

The fact is the only thing I find distasteful about this project was that it would've required a rom of Chrono Trigger to run. If it was it's own self contained rom-file (when it would be released) I'd see no problem with it.

I understand that sometimes when you create content it's hard to see other people manipulate/use it. But that emotional response does not equate to a loss of value.

[Loyal]

Christ almighty Blue, broken record!

So, you're suggesting that anyone and everyone should just be able to up and use something the company is still very much using and making money off of? Sounds like bad business to me.

And an absurdly large leap of logic. The difference between your hypothetical works of art and CT/Mickey Mouse, is that the latter cases have been out for a very long time as far as media is concerned, and have largely fallen to the wayside, being left unused except for recognition purposes unless the companies want to bring 'em back out for a quick buck. Despite this, the companies owning them continue to guard their usage with draconian wrath and conviction, despite that there's not a great deal left to be done with it.

SpecIFICALLY in the case of Mickey Mouse, copyright law had frequently popped up to say that Mickey would fall into public domain soon, and so Disney would repeatedly push to have the laws extended, just so they could squeeze the last remaining drops of life from their mascot.

You want to protect your properties? Fine! That's all well and noble. But when you're guarding a piece of media that is long past its relevancy period with the same jealousy that you would guard a new invention, the very idea of "copyright protection" kinda loses its meaning.

[Demonlink2]

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

So, you're suggesting that anyone and everyone should just be able to up and use something the company is still very much using and making money off of?

So, you're suggesting that Square Enix is continuing to make money off their old SNES cartridges of Chrono Trigger? Because that particular rom hack was for the SNES rom, and if you can show me where Square Enix themselves sells the old SNES cartridge, I'll gladly buy myself one of those old things.

Disney is actively, albeit not as well as previously, using Mickey Mouse. They continue to sell the Mouse, they continue to utilize him. Square has all but abandoned Chrono Trigger, using the DS remake as a pretty shortlived attempt at making a fanbase settle down. Pokemon Gold and Silver are getting a remake, likely to just shut up a bunch of fans. I'll bet they're well aware of Shiny Gold, but figure that it won't impact their sales. While an imperfect metaphor, that's essentially what this boils down to. Square wants to defend something they don't really want to do anything with, sorta like when your room is cluttered a bit and you don't need most of it but you won't part with any of it because it's your clutter.

At least, that's what I see it as.

EDIT: Perhaps I should try reading the response above me next time, before I write a rant. Silly me.

[EVILNess]

20 bucks says the hack ends up on the internet anyway within a year.