wad disks!

i was makeing a disk of wads for a friend, many came off of a CD of 3000 doom2/doom wads. his step dad said we were violateing copyright laws. firs that cant be true! all those levels are avilable on the net. second i was not coping the program that was owned by the distributer. all wads on addon disks( that can be downloaded off the net for free) can be passed around for free. we told him about shareware, he said he never heard of shareware or freeware programs. I told him to get his head out of bill gate's ass and look around.

had i been copying the programs that would be different, but hell i copy CD's so i dont think i would feel bad about one single, no longer used, wad loading program

Some are copyrighted

yes, but is he selling them? besides, you can find all of these wads on these cds on the net!

I can find windows XP , that is ok?

fodders said:

I can find windows XP , that is ok?

yes. M$ has plenty of money. They should pay me to use their stupid operating system...cause I'm so important

well, doesn't fileplanet allow you to copy files onto a disc too, right?

Distributing wads that have a notice such as "these files may be freely distributed..." is obviously OK, as long as you are adhering to any stipulations given (normally that they are unchanged and that the textfile is included). Distributing any wad-loader programs that may have been on the CD might be copyright infringement. But these programs are normally junk anyway, so why bother copying them?

If you copy the whole CD, then (not counting any individual infringements this might involve) this might be a violation of collection copyright. Whether this is the case depends on how much creativity/expertise went into making the selection of wads to go on the CD. Most of these CDs are just random stuff shoveled together though. Collection copyright is generally a pretty marginal affair, except in a few really special cases.

Your friend's stepdad might (possibly) be technically right, but on a very very minor point and to a very small degree. And to zero degree if this CD is indeed just random wads, good, bad or indifferent with no editorial control exercised.

There's no such thing as a "collection" copyright, and those CDs which took peoples' free levels and charged for them were really illegal if you read the DOOM Data Utility License. id didn't care about them though and the wad authors weren't in a position to do anything about it.

And don't tell me they were only sold to cover manufacturing costs. Some of those D!ZONE disks retailed at some stores for around $25. That is way more than it costs to print a few cds and stick then in a cardboard box.

fodders said:

Some are copyrighted

My understanding (and I'm prepared to be corrected, or told that this is only the case in certain countries) is that any original, personal piece of work is automatically copyrighted. ie, if it is your work, you will have the copyright for it. Proving that you have the copyright, and being able or inclined to do something about it are seperate issues.

And of course there are many other considerations that muddy the water too. eg, if I were to produce an original piece of artwork, then I implicitly have the copyright, but if I am an art student, then the chances are that the terms of my education would include a clause that says any work I do as course work, the college owns the copyright to.

And if you are paid to produce work, then usually the person or company paying you has the copyright.

One way that is generally accepted as reasonable proof of copyright for private individuals in the UK is if you have produced an original piece of work (usually written in this case) you should send it to yourself via registered mail (to get it date stamped). You do not open it, but instead get a lawyer or bank to hold on to it unopened. That is only worth doing if you are concerned about people copying your work, or if you plan to do something about it if they do. That is what I did, after taking legal advice on a piece of work I produced some years ago (nothing to do with doom, or even computers). The mere fact that I had done that was enough to deter some people who wanted to base something off my work, and then try and set up in competition to me. But I am really straying from the topic now.

Quasar said:

Some of those D!ZONE disks retailed at some stores for around $25.

Although the one I've got cost only £3. (about $4.5) Great value, considering the stuff that was on it that I didn't already have.

Enjay said:

My understanding (and I'm prepared to be corrected, or told that this is only the case in certain countries) is that any original, personal piece of work is automatically copyrighted. ie, if it is your work, you will have the copyright for it.

If you read the terms and conditions of, say, Geocities and other hosting sites, they consider anything you publish there to be owned by them.

Sephiroth said:

his step dad said we were violateing copyright laws.

What a dick, sounds like my former computer teacher.

fodders said:

If you read the terms and conditions of, say, Geocities and other hosting sites, they consider anything you publish there to be owned by them.

Well, I guess that is one of the complications I was talking about. I presume by agreeing to their hosting terms, you are allowing them to have the copyright for any materials you publish on their hosted sites. If it ever came down to a dispute, I suppose they would smugly point at the clause in the agreement that you signed, and then hapily launch your dingy up shit creek, making sure to hang on to the paddles.

fodders said:

If you read the terms and conditions of, say, Geocities and other hosting sites, they consider anything you publish there to be owned by them.

What?!?! So you're saying that the Lizards I made and copyrighted are really copyrighted to them?!?!? Fuck them!!!! >:O Greedy bastards!

TOS

7. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO GEOCITIES...
By submitting Content to Yahoo for inclusion on your Yahoo GeoCities Site, you grant Yahoo the world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content .... etc

they are NOT getting my DawgMode (banneresque thingie)

Enjay said:

My understanding (and I'm prepared to be corrected, or told that this is only the case in certain countries) is that any original, personal piece of work is automatically copyrighted.

Correct. The creator owns the copyright unless he/she assigns it in writing to someone else. This is a standard provision of international copyright conventions, but as you mention, there are probably still some countries that are still not signed up those conventions.

Enjay said:

And if you are paid to produce work, then usually the person or company paying you has the copyright.

Work done as part of one's employment is the copyright of the employer. For work done not as an employee, it depends on the written agreement.

Enjay said:

One way that is generally accepted as reasonable proof of copyright for private individuals in the UK is if you have produced an original piece of work (usually written in this case) you should send it to yourself via registered mail (to get it date stamped).

This issue is discussed in, e.g., "The Writer's Rights" by Michael Legat. I've heard of people doing this, but it probably only makes sense if there is a genuine fear of the ideas being stolen. I've written 20 books, and have never felt the need to do this.

Quasar: "collection copyright" is also known as "compilation copyright", and it does exist. As I said though, shovelware compilations almost certainly aren't covered by it.

Thanks Grazza.

fodders said:

TOS [/B]

7. CONTENT SUBMITTED TO YAHOO GEOCITIES...
By submitting Content to Yahoo for inclusion on your Yahoo GeoCities Site, you grant Yahoo the world-wide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, modify, adapt and publish the Content .... etc

That isnt giving them the copyright, just a license to do whatever they want with the stuff you put on your site.

If you look in the text files distributed with most wads, they have a section near the end which usually reads something like:

You MAY distribute this WAD, provided you include this file, with
no modifications. You may distribute this file in any electronic
format (BBS, Diskette, CD, etc) as long as you include this file
intact.

Therefore although the wads are copyrighted you have the right to redistribute them as you wish, so this isnt an issue.

Quasar said:

There's no such thing as a "collection" copyright, and those CDs which took peoples' free levels and charged for them were really illegal if you read the DOOM Data Utility License. id didn't care about them though and the wad authors weren't in a position to do anything about it.

And don't tell me they were only sold to cover manufacturing costs. Some of those D!ZONE disks retailed at some stores for around $25. That is way more than it costs to print a few cds and stick then in a cardboard box.

I dont see how id can really claim to control the add on wads in any case. You arent violating their copyright because the material is original. The only way I have ever seen a company control use of a file format is when using the format requires you to use a process that is covered by a software patent: GIF and MP3 are examples of this. The WAD file format almost certainly contains nothing patented like this.

The "Doom Data Utility License" seems to me like a bunch of hot air.

Well, it does have a point from a DOOM player/mapper's perspective in that it tends to discourage commercial exploitation of add ons. That goes along well with the "hobby-like" activity most of the "DOOM community" follows. So I'll keep supporting that "license" by advice and request, since I personally like that idea.

id seems to not worry overmuch about the actual legal standing of things unless they are about their current projects. They seem to worry mostly about what other companies or capital-based enterprises could do with their stuff, and not isolated (or "community") users. Their older games have a less well-defined legal status in respect to how they can (or can't) be used, possibly because there is no need for more clarity. For instance, The Quake engine is clearly defined as GPL, while doom is kind of in Limbo in that respect: only source-based engine users know it is GPL (unless it's all a conspiracy and it isn't, heh.)

Grazza said:

Quasar: "collection copyright" is also known as "compilation copyright", and it does exist. As I said though, shovelware compilations almost certainly aren't covered by it.

I meant with respect to DOOM level compilation CDs like DemonGate 666; D!Zone 1, 150, 2, and Gold; and H!Zone. These CDs took free, copyrighted levels off the net and purported to assemble them into one work without the prior permission of the copyright holders. There was no valid compilation copyright in this case, which is what I was really getting at :)