Quoting: tuubi

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: melkemindBeing derivative isn't copyright infringement.

Well, being derivative is actually copyright infringement. That's why unauthorized translations fall under copyright infringement; they're derivative works.

JK Rowling sued over Tanya Grotter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanya_Grotter#Legal_history [External Link]

In 2003, courts there prevented the distribution of a Dutch translation of the first in the series, Tanya Grotter and the Magical Double Bass, after Rowling and Time Warner's lawyers issued a cease and desist order, arguing that the Grotter books violated copyright law, specifically infringing on Rowling's right to control derivative works.

I think you're veering into straw man territory here, but I'll agree that derivative works infringe copyright. But only if they fit the definition:

Quoting: WikipediaIn copyright law, a derivative work is an expressive creation that includes major copyrightable elements of a first, previously created original work.

(Emphasis mine.)

Does Palworld fail that check? Some of the creatures look very similar to Pokemon monsters, but as Pengling's post showed, even more blatant examples have gone uncontested in commercial products, which works against any copyright claim on that front. The rest is no more derivative in the copyright sense than most games you can find on Steam.

Tnx.
That's indeed sounds like a persuasive argument.
In that case I'm seeing more problems with the gliders and the catching ball than with the Pals.
Having said that. I just found a way more persuasive argument. Both Nintendo and the author of this game are Japanese, which means they would be subject to Japanese law. Japanese law is a lot stricter on derivative works than US law if I understand it correctly.
They need the work to be adapted.
Pokemon is more a brand than a single work(it's not even from a single author) and the gameplay doesn't look really Pokemon like.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Others are arguing about the possible copyright infringement of Nintendo.
I myself am more curious if Ubisoft would consider the use of their style and gliders an infringement.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: dlove67

Quoting: soulsourceI'm a bit torn on this one. On the one hand it looks really interesting. On the other hand it's €20 that will be spent on nothing once it gets pulled from Steam because of (rightful) copyright claims by The Pokémon Company...

What copyright claim would Nintendo have?

I would guess that they would argue that the "pals" are derivative Pokémons.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: beko

Quoting: LoudTechieBut are you a generation X gamer.

I'd have to look up what that means.

Does that answer your question?

Nah, I had to look it up too.
It means that you were born in the seventies.
1965 -1980

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: bekoTell me. I'm an X [X4 currently] gamer. That's ruining my childhood memories of the X-Verse.

…or on any 4X game, of course.

But are you a generation X gamer.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: boltronicsIt reminds me of my time at RMIT in the early 2000s. I couldn't afford a laptop so I had Gentoo with all of my applications and work files loaded on a USB HDD, which I just plugged into one of the computers in the lab to do my work.

One day, a staff member noticed me working this way via a security camera and marched into the room to tell me that it was not allowed and demand that I immediately shut it down and boot the machine back into Windows. The person in question and some other more senior staff members called me into a meeting a few days later, and explained that it was against their ToS (which I believe they had only just made specifically for me as it wasn't even on the website yet) and said that I had compromised their computer.

I explained that all of the computers were set to boot from USB already, and I did no such thing, and that I was only doing my university work, but they didn't care.

I even protested this with a blog post explaining how absurd this was on my student account's blog (a service provided to all students simply by dropping files into ~/public_html), which the university deleted a few days later without explanation. Gosh studying there sucked! I always think about it when I think about bootable USB drives.

MUHAHA.
They must've pooped their pants.
Typical case of "security through obscurity".
Updating the TOS only keeps out only legit users like yourself.
Most students don't even read the TOS.
They could've updated their BIOS settings, but no they attack the one who was using it legit.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I'm actually really curious how Microsoft will react to game developer run game streaming services.
It really undermines the power of Windows, because the users aren't reliant on the Windows api anymore and the game hoster doesn't have to fear all that pesky software freedom on Linux, because they control the computer.
This might motivate gaming companies to bring out "exclusive Linux natives" for their cloud platforms.
Also I'm curious how they plan to scale this up.
The reason video's went to streaming earlier is that they don't consume half as much system resources.
Books can nowadays be streamed on donations as long the license costs stay low enough(proof AO3).
Films still rely on subscription fees.
Games still eat RAM for breakfast.
Servers tend to be low on RAM.
Europe's new "data sovereignty" laws will also significantly affect this development.
When they break 1 million active users at a single moment they will need around 1.6 Peta bytes of RAM with current games, which can cause problems, because they will discover that modern processors can't really handle that.
This will probably start causing problems the next register size shift.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: 14I think there is an argument that reading copyrighted material is same as a human doing so and then writing their own creative work

Look up the legal standing of fan fiction. Than repeat that statement.
Using copyrighted "aspects" is enough to be considered a copyright violation.

I suggest looking up Marion Zimmer Bradley [External Link].

For many years, Bradley actively encouraged Darkover fan fiction. She encouraged submissions from unpublished authors and reprinted some of it in commercial Darkover anthologies. This ended after a dispute with a fan over an unpublished Darkover novel of Bradley's that had similarities to one of the fan's stories. As a result, the novel remained unpublished and Bradley demanded the cessation of all Darkover fan fiction

The fan threatened to take Marion Zimmer Bradley to court for infringing on the fan's copyright. The fan holds the copyright to their own prose. The fan clearly does not hold the copyright to the characters. But should the author of the original work use prose from a fan work...well, things get dicey.

You'd also expect to face some legal trouble if you ripped some fan subs and tried to pass them off as your own translation (which has been done before).

Of note is the Organization for Transformative Works [External Link], which works to protect fan works and has this to say:

Copyright is intended to protect the creator’s right to profit from her work for a period of time to encourage creative endeavor and the widespread sharing of knowledge. But this does not preclude the right of others to respond to the original work, either with critical commentary, parody, or, we believe, transformative works.

In the United States, copyright is limited by the fair use doctrine. The legal case of Campbell v. Acuff-Rose held that transformative uses receive special consideration in fair use analysis. For those interested in reading in-depth legal analysis, more information can be found on the Fanlore Legal Analysis page.

And:

While case law in this area is limited, we believe that current copyright law already supports our understanding of fanfiction as fair use.

We seek to broaden knowledge of fan creators’ rights and reduce the confusion and uncertainty on both fan and pro creators’ sides about fair use as it applies to fanworks. One of our models is the documentary filmmakers’ statement of best practices in fair use, which has helped clarify the role of fair use in documentary filmmaking.

It's certainly not as cut and dry as you might think.

Thnx.
I'm happy to be proven wrong about the legal standing of fan fiction.
I like fan fiction and it having the option of being legal is a breath of fresh air.
I don't think it helps OpenAI, because I argue they "adversely affect the sale of the original", but I admit that is a matter of interpretation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Ooh, this is really interesting.
Although this is bad for gaming in general, it's really good for gaming on Linux.
Those are all the drm/anti-cheat heavy games anyway.
Linux gamers go from "only accesible through a game streaming service" to "only accesible through a game streaming service".

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 14I think there is an argument that reading copyrighted material is same as a human doing so and then writing their own creative work

Look up the legal standing of fan fiction. Than repeat that statement.
Using copyrighted "aspects" is enough to be considered a copyright violation.

View this comment - View article - View full comments