gamedevlists-general — List for discussing general game development issues

Re: [GD-General] Sliding port NATs

[Jason M. <ja...@s2...>]

We still have code to handle that in our engine, but I can't say for 
sure that it's still necessary, we never tried removing it to see if it 
generated complaints.  We've had a fix in place ever since we first 
encountered it around 2002.

-Jason

Alen Ladavac wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know if the issue with "moving UDP port" NATs is still
> actual? Or was that just an old driver problem back then (about 7
> years ago)?
>
> I'm refering to the case where UDP traffic coming from a client to the
> server through the client's NAT would be remapped to exit from a
> different UDP port on the NAT every few minutes. We carry the old
> workaround for that in our code and I'm wondering if it would be safe
> to remove that.
>
> Anyone else still uses that?
>
> Thanks,
> Alen
>   

Re: [GD-General] Sliding port NATs

[Alen L. <ale...@cr...>]

Tuesday, December 9, 2008, 8:52:32 PM, Jon wrote:
> If it still works, then I would still keep it. Some user somewhere is
> bound to still have the same hardware as 7 years ago.

That's a wise approach, of course... However, the fix burns two bytes
per packet to track the client id, which I'd like to cut down.

I was hoping that maybe someone can say either something like: "oh
yes, that was router xyz, but it's fixed in firmware 1.2.3, so if your
users update their router firmware, they will be safe". Or, on the
other hand, something like: "nope, this still happens even on newer
hardware, we've seen this problem recently".

My reasoning is that people with such problems are bound to see the
same problem with other games, so either all games still have this
fix, or the users have already upgraded the hw/fw. In fact, the
question should perhaps be reformed as: "Do other games/engines still
have a fix for this as well, or is it just us?"

Thanks,
Alen

[GD-General] Sliding port NATs

[Alen L. <ale...@cr...>]

Hi,

Does anyone know if the issue with "moving UDP port" NATs is still
actual? Or was that just an old driver problem back then (about 7
years ago)?

I'm refering to the case where UDP traffic coming from a client to the
server through the client's NAT would be remapped to exit from a
different UDP port on the NAT every few minutes. We carry the old
workaround for that in our code and I'm wondering if it would be safe
to remove that.

Anyone else still uses that?

Thanks,
Alen

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Pierre T. <pie...@gr...>]

> But for the key combos that Pierre describes, I'd be suspicious. A lot
> of games use those, and most modern keyboards allow those three
> presses. Finding one keyboard that doesn't is quite possible, but if
> it happens to several different models, it's either really bad luck or
> something else in the system or software. I'd definitely do a cross
> check with other games and on different machines.

I think it's just bad luck. It happens with my 2 french keyboards (different 
models but both AZERTY), and not just in my game. I tried yesterday evening: 
same issue with Oni, Max Payne 2, etc, all the games I tried.

So.... well... not much I can do, I close that bug.

Thanks anyway, this one was quite interesting.

- Pierre 

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Chris C. <ch...@bl...>]

If you want to see which combinations of keys don't register on your
keyboard, Google for KeyboardTest, which is a little application from
PassMark that displays what scan codes are coming out of the keyboard, etc
and visually displays what keys it thinks you have pressed. For example,
your S+D+Space correctly registers on mine, but A+D then E doesn't. I've had
different results with different keyboards, but it would be a poor
manufacturer that arranged the key groupings so that the most common FPS
bindings didn't register!

Chris Chapman
Black Company Studios

On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 7:24 AM, Alen Ladavac <ale...@cr...> wrote:

> Xavier wrote:
> > I have encountered the same problem as well on some (many?) keyboards,
> > with the four arrow keys not being detected when pressed at the same
> time.
>
> > I think it has to do with the wiring or the microcontroller inside some
> > keyboards that groups keys by 4, but I can't find a link anymore.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover_(key)<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover_%28key%29>
>
> > (and I don't know of any workaround.)
>
> The workaround is either to buy a better keyboard, or to bind keys in
> different positions so this doesn't happen. <shrug/>
>
> But for the key combos that Pierre describes, I'd be suspicious. A lot
> of games use those, and most modern keyboards allow those three
> presses. Finding one keyboard that doesn't is quite possible, but if
> it happens to several different models, it's either really bad luck or
> something else in the system or software. I'd definitely do a cross
> check with other games and on different machines.
>
> JM2C,
> Alen
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
> Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
> along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
> and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557
>

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Alen L. <ale...@cr...>]

Xavier wrote:
> I have encountered the same problem as well on some (many?) keyboards,
> with the four arrow keys not being detected when pressed at the same time.

> I think it has to do with the wiring or the microcontroller inside some
> keyboards that groups keys by 4, but I can't find a link anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollover_(key)

> (and I don't know of any workaround.)

The workaround is either to buy a better keyboard, or to bind keys in
different positions so this doesn't happen. <shrug/>

But for the key combos that Pierre describes, I'd be suspicious. A lot
of games use those, and most modern keyboards allow those three
presses. Finding one keyboard that doesn't is quite possible, but if
it happens to several different models, it's either really bad luck or
something else in the system or software. I'd definitely do a cross
check with other games and on different machines.

JM2C,
Alen

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Xavier B. <xav...@fr...>]

Alen Ladavac a écrit :
> Perhaps an obvious suggestion, but have you tried those same keyboards
> with same key bindings in other games?
> 

I have encountered the same problem as well on some (many?) keyboards,
with the four arrow keys not being detected when pressed at the same time.

I think it has to do with the wiring or the microcontroller inside some 
keyboards that groups keys by 4, but I can't find a link anymore.

(and I don't know of any workaround.)

xavier.

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Alen L. <ale...@cr...>]

Perhaps an obvious suggestion, but have you tried those same keyboards
with same key bindings in other games?

Pierre wrote:

>> Same problem with different keyboards in the office and at home. Hmm. Will
>> try with other ones if I can.

> Ok, found a USB keyboard where the bug doesn't appear .... Hell ! 


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
> Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
> along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
> and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557



-- 
Alen

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Pierre T. <pie...@gr...>]

> Same problem with different keyboards in the office and at home. Hmm. Will
> try with other ones if I can.

Ok, found a USB keyboard where the bug doesn't appear .... Hell ! 

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Pierre T. <pie...@gr...>]

> I'd say you should try with a
> different keyboard, perhaps you have a ghosting problem in the
> hardware.

Same problem with different keyboards in the office and at home. Hmm. Will 
try with other ones if I can.

> On another note, I've never used DirectInput for keyboard or
> mouse. IME, I've had more robust results and a simpler solution by
> intercepting the keyboard/mouse events (WH_GETMESSAGE, WH_CALLWNDPROC
> - both need to be checked at the same time) directly for keypresses
> and GetCursorPos() for mouse position.

Hmmm, why not WH_KEYBOARD or WH_KEYBOARD_LL ?

I tried WH_KEYBOARD but it has the same problem as DI anyway. Sigh.

- Pierre 

Re: [GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Alen L. <ale...@cr...>]

Nope, works correctly for me (though I tested this on April 2006 SDK -
don't ask, that's what I had handy :) ). I'd say you should try with a
different keyboard, perhaps you have a ghosting problem in the
hardware.

On another note, I've never used DirectInput for keyboard or
mouse. IME, I've had more robust results and a simpler solution by
intercepting the keyboard/mouse events (WH_GETMESSAGE, WH_CALLWNDPROC
- both need to be checked at the same time) directly for keypresses
and GetCursorPos() for mouse position.

HTH,
Alen

Pierre wrote:

> (Posted here while I'm waiting for the DXML to confirm my subscription)

> Hi,

> I have a problem with DirectInput in the August 2007 SDK. A good repro case
> exists in the SDK's samples, just run:

> Microsoft DirectX SDK (August 
> 2007)\Samples\C++\DirectInput\Bin\x86\Keyboard.exe

> Create an exclusive, foreground, immediate device.

> Now, press W and D at the same time, as if you were moving forward/right in
> a game. Then, while still pressing W and D, press space for a jump. The key
> is correctly detected (Data 0x11 0x20 0x39).

> Now however, press S and D at the same time, to move backward/right (Data
> 0x1f 0x20). Then press space. The key is not detected, and player can't jump
> while moving backward/right (which is exactly how I found the issue).

> Do you see the same thing?
> Is that "normal" behaviour? (??)
> Any way to fix this?

> Thanks for any help....

> - Pierre 


> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW!
> Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project,
> along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness
> and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557



-- 
Alen

[GD-General] A DirectInput problem

[Pierre T. <pie...@gr...>]

(Posted here while I'm waiting for the DXML to confirm my subscription)

Hi,

I have a problem with DirectInput in the August 2007 SDK. A good repro case 
exists in the SDK's samples, just run:

Microsoft DirectX SDK (August 
2007)\Samples\C++\DirectInput\Bin\x86\Keyboard.exe

Create an exclusive, foreground, immediate device.

Now, press W and D at the same time, as if you were moving forward/right in 
a game. Then, while still pressing W and D, press space for a jump. The key 
is correctly detected (Data 0x11 0x20 0x39).

Now however, press S and D at the same time, to move backward/right (Data 
0x1f 0x20). Then press space. The key is not detected, and player can't jump 
while moving backward/right (which is exactly how I found the issue).

Do you see the same thing?
Is that "normal" behaviour? (??)
Any way to fix this?

Thanks for any help....

- Pierre 

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Jon W. <hp...@mi...>]

George Warner wrote:
> (note: devil's advacote; I'm anti-DRM... ;-)
>   


DRM and copyright are very different. I am pro copyright, but anti DRM, 
because the vast majority of DRM prevents fair use, while not being a 
deterrent for copyright violation.

Sincerely,

jw

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Crosbie F. <cr...@cy...>]

> From: George Warner
> Ok, so why should a company spend money on a commission for 
> something that their competition will then get for free?

I've responded here:
http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=127 (happy to credit you as
the asker of the questions if you wish).

If people feel this discussion remains on topic, I'll be happy to resume it
here.

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Crosbie F. <cr...@cy...>]

Bob, rather than consume bandwidth on GD-General, I've answered that
question here: http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=126
<http://www.digitalproductions.co.uk/index.php?id=126>  (I'm happy to credit
you as the asker of the question if you'd like).



  _____  

From: Bob [mailto:ma...@mb...] 
Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2008 7:45pm
To: gam...@li...
Subject: Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created


 

> Because of my research I now recognise it as unethical and so I can never
> countenance going back to it, but we can leave ethical considerations as a
> personal choice - whilst such unethical legislation still stands.

I defy that claim. How is Copyright fundamentally unethical?

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!

[Tom H. <to...@ve...>]

I guess this is all just so absurd that I'm having difficulties coming  
up with the will to debate it. It's like trying to explain why  
calculus is important to someone who wants to get rid of algebra (and  
hence all higher math) because they don't like word problems. I'm sure  
such a concept would appeal to high school students everywhere because  
it would make their lives easier in the short term, but in the long  
term all of society would suffer from such actions.

Fundamentally, people need to be able to create original works and  
profit from those works so they can reap the rewards of the effort,  
which allows them to earn a living and continue to provide society  
with the benefit of future works. Society at large also must be able  
to use those works that they've purchased fairly. The trick is making  
sure that both sides get proper value based on the price they pay. If  
it is skewed too heavily in one direction or the other, it creates a  
pressure point in the market which instigates change. The RIAA fought  
that change tooth and nail instead of embracing it, and they're  
feeling the pain as a direct result.

The solution isn't to throw out all laws that govern these things, but  
to find laws that fit properly and ensure both short term and long  
term health of the affected markets. If you want to put together a  
petition to strike down bills that allow ridiculous abuse of due- 
process, let me know and I'll be happy to sign it. If you want to work  
on patent and copyright reform that is more representative of the  
world we have today, show me where to sign up. If you want to promote  
dumping all the protections and the ability to penalize people who  
violate those protections, then I have to think that not only have you  
lost all touch with reality, but you'll do more damage than good to  
those that want to make effective changes.

Tom

On May 27, 2008, at 12:28 PM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

>> From: Tom Hubina
>> To be clear - no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take
>> all of the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my
>> products,
>
> Yes, and this is good. Anyone should be able to build upon published  
> works.
>
>> call it my own,
>
> This would be plagiarism, misrepresentation, misattribution, fraud, a
> violation of the respective authors' moral rights to be recognised  
> as the
> authors of their works, etc.
>
> Copyright does not protect attribution.
>
>> charge for it,
>
> Of course.
>
>> and have it be totally closed source.
>
> If you wished, but then without copyright there's no need to  
> persuade people
> to provide the source code when they sell their software. Given  
> binaries
> cost nothing to make or copy, there would be no market for binaries.  
> You'd
> only get paid for selling source code - since no-one with their head  
> screwed
> on would pay for software to be developed if the source code  
> representing
> the work they'd paid for wasn't delivered to them. Inevitably, the  
> binary
> would serve as a free demo for the software.
>
>> Without copyright, someone using one of your sites could lift the
>> images from the web site, use it, resell it, whatever without
>> any fear
>> and without paying the artist who created the work (not even the
>> initial purchase).
>
> Yes, of course. Given the images have been released to the public, the
> public are free to share and build upon public culture.
>
> Without copyright, artists would obviously be careful to ensure  
> they'd been
> adequately compensated for their work prior to releasing it.
>
>> Without ownership of the images / IP / whatever the items
>> cease to be property.
>
> Yes. However, copyright is not about ownership but about reproduction
> privileges. Intellectual property doesn't cease without copyright,  
> it just
> means the copyright holder no longer has the privilege of preventing  
> the
> owners of copies from making further copies or derivatives.
>
> Intellectual work still remains property, otherwise you can't sell it.
>
>> As such, theft is meaningless and no longer a crime.
>
> Not at all. Intellectual works are highly valuable and to be paid  
> for, and
> any theft punished with appropriate restitution. Copyright is about  
> having a
> monopoly and prosecuting infringers, not about ownership of  
> intellectual
> works and prosecuting their theft.
>
>> If someone steals your images / art off your computer they might be
>> charged for the act of hacking your system, but they would be
>> able to
>> do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've stolen.
>> If they then take those assets, and put them up on the internet for
>> everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone could do about it.
>> The original artist would get ZERO compensation.
>
> I quite agree. But again, copyright is not about securing IP against  
> theft,
> but about preventing people from making copies of the IP they've  
> purchased.
>
>> That is just a trite example ... imagine when big corporations are
>> suddenly given unfettered access to anything and everything they can
>> get their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with
>> file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared to the
>> amount of damage that corporations could do. Imagine the recording
>> industry being able to take the work of smaller artists, lifted
>> directly from their web site, package it, market it, and sell it to
>> the masses without ever paying the original artist anything.
>
> If you are classifying the restoration of liberty and an emancipated  
> public
> as damage, then this is a strange way of looking at things.
>
> As for corporations exploiting smaller artists without giving them  
> fair
> compensation, many would say this is the situation with copyright. The
> recent US Orphan Works act is even fairly blatant in effectively  
> allowing
> corporations to ignore the copyrights of 'smaller artists'.
>
>> The more
>> exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of course
>> this kind of activity is ultimately self destructive, but it can turn
>> a quick profit with minimal investment so it would be done massively
>> until everything has been sucked dry.
>
> So without the monopolies that copyright provides them, you feel
> corporations would suddenly make colossal profits?
>
> If that was the case, I suspect copyright would have been abolished  
> already,
> instead of the corporations' lobbying for the introduction of ever  
> more
> draconian reinforcement.
>
>> Without a system of checks and balances and a reasonable legal
>> response to people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos.
>> When there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money
>> (companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by
>> performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere.
>> Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game
>> entirely, or it's relegated to hobby only style work.
>
> I agree, but I wouldn't put it quite so dramatically.
>
>> Innovation and creativity would all but stop and the digital age and
>> all future progress would stall.
>
> Because copyright became unviable and was abolished, or because  
> there was no
> system of checks and balances?
>
>> I'm not suggesting that things like GPL or even what you're doing  
>> with
>> your sites are going to be the downfall of everything. They can only
>> exist because they have the protections that copyright and other IP
>> laws provide them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license
>> folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems.
>
> Given that the GPL provides a means of restoring the freedoms that  
> copyright
> and patent removes from free software developers, without copyright  
> and
> patent there is no need for the GPL.
>
> It would be strange if in order to allow people the freedom to copy we
> needed a law that suspended that freedom.
>
>> I'm also not suggesting that Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively
>> flawed ... they are ... but throwing them out entirely instead of
>> working to fix the problems is asinine.
>
> I'm suggesting that their ineffectiveness will soon become so  
> obvious, that
> the needless prosecutions that continue in the name of their  
> enforcement
> should be stopped - consequently demonstrating the case for abolition.
>
> However, if you think copyright and patent remain eminently  
> functional and
> are the keys to your continued success, I'm not going to try and  
> change your
> mind.
>
> I'm talking to those who are beginning to notice that 'something is  
> rotten
> in the state of Denmark', and are wondering if anyone's been working  
> on
> solutions...
>
>> They exist for a very good
>> reason, they're just not keeping pace with the massive
>> changes in the way things are created, used, and distributed.
>
> They exist because of things that happened 300 years ago with a
> communications infrastructure far more easily subject to the crown's
> control. Certain state and commercial interests found good reasons for
> copyright, but even then they weren't good reasons for the public, and
> they're certainly not very good reasons today.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
> _______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!

[Bob <ma...@mb...>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Crosbie Fitch" <cr...@cy...>
To: <gam...@li...>
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2008 2:28 PM
Subject: Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!


>> From: Tom Hubina
>> To be clear - no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take  
>> all of the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my 
>> products,  
> 
> Yes, and this is good. Anyone should be able to build upon published works.
> 
>> call it my own, 
> 
> This would be plagiarism, misrepresentation, misattribution, fraud, a
> violation of the respective authors' moral rights to be recognised as the
> authors of their works, etc.
> 
> Copyright does not protect attribution.
> 
>> charge for it, 
> 
> Of course.
> 
>> and have it be totally closed source.  
> 
> If you wished, but then without copyright there's no need to persuade people
> to provide the source code when they sell their software. Given binaries
> cost nothing to make or copy, there would be no market for binaries. You'd
> only get paid for selling source code - since no-one with their head screwed
> on would pay for software to be developed if the source code representing
> the work they'd paid for wasn't delivered to them. Inevitably, the binary
> would serve as a free demo for the software.
> 
>> Without copyright, someone using one of your sites could lift the  
>> images from the web site, use it, resell it, whatever without 
>> any fear  
>> and without paying the artist who created the work (not even the  
>> initial purchase).
> 
> Yes, of course. Given the images have been released to the public, the
> public are free to share and build upon public culture.
> 
> Without copyright, artists would obviously be careful to ensure they'd been
> adequately compensated for their work prior to releasing it.
> 
>> Without ownership of the images / IP / whatever the items 
>> cease to be property.
> 
> Yes. However, copyright is not about ownership but about reproduction
> privileges. Intellectual property doesn't cease without copyright, it just
> means the copyright holder no longer has the privilege of preventing the
> owners of copies from making further copies or derivatives.
> 
> Intellectual work still remains property, otherwise you can't sell it.
> 
>> As such, theft is meaningless and no longer a crime.
> 
> Not at all. Intellectual works are highly valuable and to be paid for, and
> any theft punished with appropriate restitution. Copyright is about having a
> monopoly and prosecuting infringers, not about ownership of intellectual
> works and prosecuting their theft.
> 
>> If someone steals your images / art off your computer they might be  
>> charged for the act of hacking your system, but they would be 
>> able to  
>> do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've stolen.  
>> If they then take those assets, and put them up on the internet for  
>> everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone could do about it.  
>> The original artist would get ZERO compensation.
> 
> I quite agree. But again, copyright is not about securing IP against theft,
> but about preventing people from making copies of the IP they've purchased.
> 
>> That is just a trite example ... imagine when big corporations are  
>> suddenly given unfettered access to anything and everything they can  
>> get their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with  
>> file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared to the  
>> amount of damage that corporations could do. Imagine the recording  
>> industry being able to take the work of smaller artists, lifted  
>> directly from their web site, package it, market it, and sell it to  
>> the masses without ever paying the original artist anything.
> 
> If you are classifying the restoration of liberty and an emancipated public
> as damage, then this is a strange way of looking at things.
> 
> As for corporations exploiting smaller artists without giving them fair
> compensation, many would say this is the situation with copyright. The
> recent US Orphan Works act is even fairly blatant in effectively allowing
> corporations to ignore the copyrights of 'smaller artists'.
> 
>> The more  
>> exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of course  
>> this kind of activity is ultimately self destructive, but it can turn  
>> a quick profit with minimal investment so it would be done massively  
>> until everything has been sucked dry.
> 
> So without the monopolies that copyright provides them, you feel
> corporations would suddenly make colossal profits?
> 
> If that was the case, I suspect copyright would have been abolished already,
> instead of the corporations' lobbying for the introduction of ever more
> draconian reinforcement.
> 
>> Without a system of checks and balances and a reasonable legal  
>> response to people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos.  
>> When there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money  
>> (companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by  
>> performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere.  
>> Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game 
>> entirely, or it's relegated to hobby only style work.
> 
> I agree, but I wouldn't put it quite so dramatically.
> 
>> Innovation and creativity would all but stop and the digital age and  
>> all future progress would stall.
> 
> Because copyright became unviable and was abolished, or because there was no
> system of checks and balances?
> 
>> I'm not suggesting that things like GPL or even what you're doing with  
>> your sites are going to be the downfall of everything. They can only  
>> exist because they have the protections that copyright and other IP  
>> laws provide them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license  
>> folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems.
> 
> Given that the GPL provides a means of restoring the freedoms that copyright
> and patent removes from free software developers, without copyright and
> patent there is no need for the GPL.
> 
> It would be strange if in order to allow people the freedom to copy we
> needed a law that suspended that freedom.


Three hundred years ago be damned. How many artistic works were produced three hundred years ago? More than that, from that small body of work, how many of the authors were able to support themselves on the income form this heady, intellectual sort of work? Yeah, practically zero. The creation of copyright, was, as you have repeatedly stated, in an era of expensive publishing, and therefore has served a class of middle-man business owners for the majority of the last 300 years.

Things definitly are changing in the digital age. I personally don't focus on the proliferation of "piracy" in the last decade or two so much as the rapid decrease in publishing expenses, not in the matter of duplication but in all areas of production. I studied (computer aided) design in college back in the early 90s, and even then there was a great deal of mechanical work involved in pre-press and printing that has since evaporated -- there is practically no technical knowhow, much less physical expense, to any of those tasks today. This means that publishers are the dodo facing extinction as more and more authors come to realize they don't need them. All of a sudden, Copyright is directly serving authors in the movement to break away from the parasitic industry of publishers!

Copyright laws probably do need to be stripped of aspects that have already been added to serve the unique purposes of incorporated publishers, but it is nonetheless empowering for authors. The notion that public has "liberty" to claim anyone's creative work without recompense solely on the basis of the ability to lay hands upon it is truly unethical, and at the same time counter to the good of society (if you consider growth of creative production a good thing). Diffusing the problem of intellectual property value that authors rightfully earn, not just in their immediate labour but in the great deal of study and expense necessary to the learning of these sophisticated crafts, by pointing judgemental fingers at the middlemen tasked with reproduction, marketing and distribution, is a deceptive tactic.


>> I'm also not suggesting that Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively  
>> flawed ... they are ... but throwing them out entirely instead of  
>> working to fix the problems is asinine.
> 
> I'm suggesting that their ineffectiveness will soon become so obvious, that
> the needless prosecutions that continue in the name of their enforcement
> should be stopped - consequently demonstrating the case for abolition.
> 
> However, if you think copyright and patent remain eminently functional and
> are the keys to your continued success, I'm not going to try and change your
> mind.
> 
> I'm talking to those who are beginning to notice that 'something is rotten
> in the state of Denmark', and are wondering if anyone's been working on
> solutions...


The fact that you seek only to sway the undecided doesn't say much for the validity of your argument. If anything such a claim belies a lack of confidence in your position. I've got a few books on the subject of propaganda (dating back to Schopenhauer) that identify fence-sitters as the most receptive to emotional appeal and hyperbole. ;)

Mind, I have no fear of Copyright being abolished. It is a fantasy scenario. Even if I agreed with you that Copyright is rotten to the core, it would be a matter best pursued in increments, and ultimately settled in compromise. Law is not painted in broad strokes.

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[George W. <ge...@ap...>]

On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:01:24 +0100, "Crosbie Fitch"
<cr...@cy...> wrote:

>> From: George Warner
>> So why should a company spend money on a commission when
>> instead they could just wait and get it for free?
>
> For the same reason the people most interested in specific GPL software
> (enhancements, bug fixes, etc.) don't wait for it to be eventually released
> when more people are more interested. Believe it or not, but big businesses
> do commission the development of GPL software (rather than wait for someone
> else to do it and get it for free).

Ok, so why should a company spend money on a commission for something that
their competition will then get for free?

(note: devil's advacote; I'm anti-DRM... ;-)
-- 
Enjoy,
George Warner,
Schizophrenic Optimization Scientist
Apple Developer Technical Support (DTS)

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!

[Crosbie F. <cr...@cy...>]

> From: Tom Hubina
> To be clear - no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take  
> all of the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my 
> products,  

Yes, and this is good. Anyone should be able to build upon published works.

> call it my own, 

This would be plagiarism, misrepresentation, misattribution, fraud, a
violation of the respective authors' moral rights to be recognised as the
authors of their works, etc.

Copyright does not protect attribution.

> charge for it, 

Of course.

> and have it be totally closed source.  

If you wished, but then without copyright there's no need to persuade people
to provide the source code when they sell their software. Given binaries
cost nothing to make or copy, there would be no market for binaries. You'd
only get paid for selling source code - since no-one with their head screwed
on would pay for software to be developed if the source code representing
the work they'd paid for wasn't delivered to them. Inevitably, the binary
would serve as a free demo for the software.

> Without copyright, someone using one of your sites could lift the  
> images from the web site, use it, resell it, whatever without 
> any fear  
> and without paying the artist who created the work (not even the  
> initial purchase).

Yes, of course. Given the images have been released to the public, the
public are free to share and build upon public culture.

Without copyright, artists would obviously be careful to ensure they'd been
adequately compensated for their work prior to releasing it.

> Without ownership of the images / IP / whatever the items 
> cease to be property.

Yes. However, copyright is not about ownership but about reproduction
privileges. Intellectual property doesn't cease without copyright, it just
means the copyright holder no longer has the privilege of preventing the
owners of copies from making further copies or derivatives.

Intellectual work still remains property, otherwise you can't sell it.

> As such, theft is meaningless and no longer a crime.

Not at all. Intellectual works are highly valuable and to be paid for, and
any theft punished with appropriate restitution. Copyright is about having a
monopoly and prosecuting infringers, not about ownership of intellectual
works and prosecuting their theft.

> If someone steals your images / art off your computer they might be  
> charged for the act of hacking your system, but they would be 
> able to  
> do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've stolen.  
> If they then take those assets, and put them up on the internet for  
> everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone could do about it.  
> The original artist would get ZERO compensation.

I quite agree. But again, copyright is not about securing IP against theft,
but about preventing people from making copies of the IP they've purchased.

> That is just a trite example ... imagine when big corporations are  
> suddenly given unfettered access to anything and everything they can  
> get their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with  
> file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared to the  
> amount of damage that corporations could do. Imagine the recording  
> industry being able to take the work of smaller artists, lifted  
> directly from their web site, package it, market it, and sell it to  
> the masses without ever paying the original artist anything.

If you are classifying the restoration of liberty and an emancipated public
as damage, then this is a strange way of looking at things.

As for corporations exploiting smaller artists without giving them fair
compensation, many would say this is the situation with copyright. The
recent US Orphan Works act is even fairly blatant in effectively allowing
corporations to ignore the copyrights of 'smaller artists'.

> The more  
> exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of course  
> this kind of activity is ultimately self destructive, but it can turn  
> a quick profit with minimal investment so it would be done massively  
> until everything has been sucked dry.

So without the monopolies that copyright provides them, you feel
corporations would suddenly make colossal profits?

If that was the case, I suspect copyright would have been abolished already,
instead of the corporations' lobbying for the introduction of ever more
draconian reinforcement.

> Without a system of checks and balances and a reasonable legal  
> response to people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos.  
> When there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money  
> (companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by  
> performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere.  
> Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game 
> entirely, or it's relegated to hobby only style work.

I agree, but I wouldn't put it quite so dramatically.

> Innovation and creativity would all but stop and the digital age and  
> all future progress would stall.

Because copyright became unviable and was abolished, or because there was no
system of checks and balances?

> I'm not suggesting that things like GPL or even what you're doing with  
> your sites are going to be the downfall of everything. They can only  
> exist because they have the protections that copyright and other IP  
> laws provide them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license  
> folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems.

Given that the GPL provides a means of restoring the freedoms that copyright
and patent removes from free software developers, without copyright and
patent there is no need for the GPL.

It would be strange if in order to allow people the freedom to copy we
needed a law that suspended that freedom.

> I'm also not suggesting that Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively  
> flawed ... they are ... but throwing them out entirely instead of  
> working to fix the problems is asinine.

I'm suggesting that their ineffectiveness will soon become so obvious, that
the needless prosecutions that continue in the name of their enforcement
should be stopped - consequently demonstrating the case for abolition.

However, if you think copyright and patent remain eminently functional and
are the keys to your continued success, I'm not going to try and change your
mind.

I'm talking to those who are beginning to notice that 'something is rotten
in the state of Denmark', and are wondering if anyone's been working on
solutions...

> They exist for a very good  
> reason, they're just not keeping pace with the massive 
> changes in the way things are created, used, and distributed.

They exist because of things that happened 300 years ago with a
communications infrastructure far more easily subject to the crown's
control. Certain state and commercial interests found good reasons for
copyright, but even then they weren't good reasons for the public, and
they're certainly not very good reasons today.

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Bob <ma...@mb...>]

> Because of my research I now recognise it as unethical and so I can never
> countenance going back to it, but we can leave ethical considerations as a
> personal choice - whilst such unethical legislation still stands.

I defy that claim. How is Copyright fundamentally unethical?

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Crosbie F. <cr...@cy...>]

> From: Bob
> Copyright allows an author to sell, or license, many copies of an 
> easily-duplicated property to individuals for a very small 
> price

There have been people making good arguments against copyright long before
me, but the fact that it is unethical and unnatural is beside the point.

If you feel that copyright is going to continue to be viable given the
natural mechanics of the digital domain, then sure, stick with it.

Because of my research I now recognise it as unethical and so I can never
countenance going back to it, but we can leave ethical considerations as a
personal choice - whilst such unethical legislation still stands.

It is not too difficult to understand the mechanism of copyright (despite
its unethical suspension of the public's liberty), but it is not viable in
an environment in which diffusion of digital works cannot be controlled.

Either those people who are beginning to operate and develop non-copyright
based business models are living in a fantasy world and can be ignored as
passengers on the B Ark, or they are simply evidence that human beings are
incredibly adaptable to change (the change in copyright's effectiveness).

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!

[Tom H. <to...@ve...>]

One of the biggest myths about GPL is that you can "use it as you  
wish", which simply isn't true. It's "free" as long as you feel like  
re-defining Free to be their definition of "free". You can use it  
without charge, but only if you're able and willing to make the  
results "Free" as well. Which of course you can't do in many situations.

To be clear - no copyright or ownership would mean that I could take  
all of the various GPL code on the net, integrate it into my products,  
call it my own, charge for it, and have it be totally closed source.  
Which currently, you're not allowed to do. I could do this because I  
would have just as much of a right to their source as they do.

Without copyright, someone using one of your sites could lift the  
images from the web site, use it, resell it, whatever without any fear  
and without paying the artist who created the work (not even the  
initial purchase).

Without ownership of the images / IP / whatever the items cease to be  
property. As such, theft is meaningless and no longer a crime. If  
someone steals your images / art off your computer they might be  
charged for the act of hacking your system, but they would be able to  
do whatever they wanted with the digital assets that they've stolen.  
If they then take those assets, and put them up on the internet for  
everyone to use, there would be _nothing_ anyone could do about it.  
The original artist would get ZERO compensation.

That is just a trite example ... imagine when big corporations are  
suddenly given unfettered access to anything and everything they can  
get their hands on. The amount of damage that some individuals with  
file sharing or whatever can do is miniscule when compared to the  
amount of damage that corporations could do. Imagine the recording  
industry being able to take the work of smaller artists, lifted  
directly from their web site, package it, market it, and sell it to  
the masses without ever paying the original artist anything. The more  
exploitative they are, the more profitable they will be. Of course  
this kind of activity is ultimately self destructive, but it can turn  
a quick profit with minimal investment so it would be done massively  
until everything has been sucked dry.

Without a system of checks and balances and a reasonable legal  
response to people who abuse others you end up with absolute chaos.  
When there's chaos, no one makes money. If no one makes money  
(companies or otherwise), then they can't feed themselves by  
performing that activity and they have to get a job elsewhere.  
Everyone either turns cannibal, gets out of the game entirely, or it's  
relegated to hobby only style work.

Innovation and creativity would all but stop and the digital age and  
all future progress would stall.

I'm not suggesting that things like GPL or even what you're doing with  
your sites are going to be the downfall of everything. They can only  
exist because they have the protections that copyright and other IP  
laws provide them, and as long as those laws exist the "Free" license  
folks can continue to co-exist with the closed source systems.

I'm also not suggesting that Copyright, Patents, etc aren't massively  
flawed ... they are ... but throwing them out entirely instead of  
working to fix the problems is asinine. They exist for a very good  
reason, they're just not keeping pace with the massive changes in the  
way things are created, used, and distributed.

Tom

On May 27, 2008, at 9:24 AM, Crosbie Fitch wrote:

> No need to apologise for being blunt. It's good to get to the point  
> rather than skirt the issues to avoid hurting people's feelings  
> (this is gamdevlists, not Facebook).
>
> I may be hopelessly unclear, but I am trying to implement mechanisms  
> that allow artists to be compensated for their labour.
>
> However, after the artist has been equitably compensated, their  
> labour can then be exploited by anyone else - royalty free.
>
> If you have difficulty with the idea that it could be possible for  
> someone, having been equitably compensated, to permit others to use  
> and build upon their work royalty free, you should check out the  
> world of Free Software, GPL, GNU/Linux, etc.
>
> Incidentally, someone has implemented the Digital Art Auction, i.e. http://www.propagateltd.com 
>   so this could well be the eBay for digital art. Life's too short  
> to worry about being a pioneer.
>
> You say the artist would be better served working on commission for  
> business companies. All I'm exploring is the same thing, but with  
> the company disintermediated. So, instead of accepting a commission  
> from one business company, you accept one from all or any of your  
> audience (which may well include several business companies that  
> might outbid other members of your audience). The difference is  
> though, that instead of the company asserting their copyright over  
> the work, it is neutralised such that anyone who receives it is free  
> to use it as they wish (a la GPL).
>
>
>
> From: Bob [mailto:ma...@mb...]
> Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2008 4:29pm
> To: gam...@li...
> Subject: Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created  
> conte nt providers, beware!
>
> Sorry to be blunt, but your storefront doesn't solve any problem.  
> Certainly, you may create the eBay of artwork, centralizing commerce  
> (you would not be much of a pioneer in that field now), but without  
> copyright protection one sale is enough to completely devalue the  
> work. The artist would be better served working on commission for  
> business companies, where they still only make one sale, but  
> themselves determine (often through bidding) the value of their work.
>
> The problem is not how to charge for a work of art. Nor even how to  
> keep people from copying a work that is on the internet for private  
> use. It is, rather, how to avoid having your labour (and I do mean  
> labour, as any 3d artist can tell you that a decent model represents  
> often hundreds of hours of eye-straining, wrist-damaging work),  
> exploited for the profit of others without compensation.
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
> Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/_______________________________________________
> Gamedevlists-general mailing list
> Gam...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general
> Archives:
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_id=557

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Bob <ma...@mb...>]

> Bear in mind though, an artist isn't going to part with their hard labour 
> if
> the compensation isn't equitable. So, as in any market, if there's no 
> demand
> for your work (sooner rather than later), you won't necessarily be able to
> sell it at the price you'd like (so keep it under wraps until the market's
> right).


In those pages you linked before there are a lot of fantasy scenarios,. I 
won't bother point out the silliness of them all, but one in particular was 
Herbert Spencer's hospital bed, unwanted by manufacturers because of the 
lack of Patent. The essay argued that without the existence of Patents in 
the first place, Spencer's bed design would not have been at a disadvantage.

That works the other way, not just for the benefit of the publishers or 
manufacturers, but for the public. For the very reason you lay out above --  
Copyright allows an author to sell, or license, many copies of an 
easily-duplicated property to individuals for a very small price, accruing a 
fair return on his or her labour eventually. Whereas, if everything rests on 
one sale at a price equivalent to the time and effort involved, the market 
may very well never be "ready." Especially when the subject is something 
like 3D art, where the skill and time involved in production is often 
reduced significantly in a relatively short period of time, and the 
usefulness of the model may evaporate completely due to a change in favoured 
technology.


--bob 

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created

[Crosbie F. <cr...@cy...>]

> From: George Warner
> So why should a company spend money on a commission when 
> instead they could just wait and get it for free?

For the same reason the people most interested in specific GPL software
(enhancements, bug fixes, etc.) don't wait for it to be eventually released
when more people are more interested. Believe it or not, but big businesses
do commission the development of GPL software (rather than wait for someone
else to do it and get it for free).

In a digital art auction, if you need something sooner rather than later you
can say how much it's worth to you sooner, even if it's just a penny. If you
don't need it sooner and it isn't even worth a penny to you, then yes, wait
and get it for free.

Bear in mind though, an artist isn't going to part with their hard labour if
the compensation isn't equitable. So, as in any market, if there's no demand
for your work (sooner rather than later), you won't necessarily be able to
sell it at the price you'd like (so keep it under wraps until the market's
right).

Re: [GD-General] Pro-IP bill passed the house: User-created conte nt providers, beware!

[Jon W. <hp...@mi...>]

Troy Gilbert wrote:
> don't quite understand: why is that because something is "costless"
> (even though it's not *actually* costless, but it's pretty close for
> most scenarios) it's wrong to charge for it anyway? I mean, it doesn't
>   

Because students and other layabouts with loud mouths and no family to 
feed don't value human time?

After all, human time is the only resource that is always fully limited. 
Any other resource, you're likely to be able to get as much as you need, 
for some price. However, with human time: Once consumed, there is no 
more! You get 30,000 days on this earth (give or take), and that's it. 
Make sure you spend it well!

Sincerely,

jw