Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Creaphis

ripping discussion started by Creaphis

Recommended Posts

That would be a fantastic solution if there was even the slightest legal repercussion for ripping resources directly.

I'm not against a way to do things legally, but it adds complication and limits audiences to people who own all the iwads, and I just don't expect a majority of mappers to adopt this practice willingly. If some few mappers adopt this method, these same few Doomers might put uncomfortable and unnecessary pressure on other mappers to follow suit, which isn't a great replacement for the current environment where almost all of us are happy to ignore minor resource theft.

I just had to interject a different view. Sorry about that. Everyone continue.

Share this post


Link to post

What a morally bankrupt discussion this really is. The way I see it:

If you want to fight the Heretic monsters, buy and then play Heretic for yourself.
If you want to fight the Hexen monsters, buy and then play Hexen for yourself.

Ripping resources from one game and shoehorning them into another is probably the lamest type of mod in existence. Not to mention how absolutely ridiculous it is to have wizards riding dragons fighting alongside the armies of hell.

Share this post


Link to post

Uh

The subject at hand is mainly the practice of ripping textures. Considering how many great wads have done this illegally, I don't think they're all "the lamest type of mod in existence."

Share this post


Link to post

Well, you have your opinion and I have mine.

EDIT: Oh, and a texture is a resource :P

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

EDIT: Oh, and a texture is a resource :P


Yes I know, but this is really all beside the point. Whether mods that take resources from other Doom engine games are lame or not, and whether the resources taken are textures or sprites or anything else, the mod makers are technically doing this illegally - but no owners of the resources seem to care. My vote on this issue is that there should be a utility made so that iwad resources can be merged easily and legally, but there shouldn't be any pressure on mappers to force the player to use this utility, because the existing practice of resource theft hasn't rung any alarm bells.

Share this post


Link to post

Split off since this really has nothing to do with "Heretic equivalent of Chocolate Doom", a discussion that included some interesting points and doesn't deserve to be hijacked.

And you are on very thin ice by advocating illegal ripping of resources.

Share this post


Link to post

I see what you are getting at. A tool which "does the ripping and combining for me" is no different from a real person using XWE to do the same. Its still ripping.

No matter how many times I see it, I still find it hard to believe anyone would want to mix the resources of the various DOOM engine games. Other than DOOM/DOOM2, its not like they are even in the same graphical style.

Share this post


Link to post

Woah, hold on Grazza - this discussion started with this post (I have no idea how to link to a post directly):

exp(x) said:

Would there be any way to allow two (or more) iwads to be loaded? Perhaps conflicting entries could be loaded only from a designated primary iwad and the rest would simply be treated like a resource wad. It would be interesting to have a legal way of making a wad using resources from multiple games.


Both you and DaniJ would benefit from reading from that point again. I'm pretty sure DaniJ is entirely off track what the topic was there and has put my statements out of their intended context. I didn't expect to be taken as "advocating resource theft" - I thought we were mainly used to the "borrowing" of textures as this point, as countless popular wads have done so without complaint from Doomers or the resource owners. I'm certainly not "advocating" anything more severe than that - I'm only reacting to a practice that is already well entrenched.

As this thread is now out of context and essentially meaningless it would be better off helled, or the first post could be spliced back where it was for a second try at meaningful discussion.

Share this post


Link to post

I've got to take Creaphis's side here.

Alien Vendetta, the GothicDM series, Crucified Dreams, Vae Victus 2, and many other wads use textures either taken directly from or based on and modified from Heretic or Hexen. Suspended in Dusk uses some modified Quake textures (and of course there are many other wads, such as the Torment and Torture series, that make heavy usage of them). Plutonia's distinctive bricks also seem to be well-liked, showing up all over the place (Ultimate Simplicity comes to mind, but there are many others, of course).

I can't help but find it kind of odd that some of us unquestioningly praise many of these wads, while at the same time yelling at anyone who dares to ask about it.

While it's obviously illegal, and I suppose the morality of it is questionable, everyone seems to turn a blind eye to it unless someone makes it an issue. Even when a wad becomes popular enough for the people who are dead-set against resource theft to play it themselves, no one seems to care.

Until Raven and id Software start filing suits against modders for putting their resources into each others' games (this will never happen), I don't mind whose resources someone is using, as long as they don't feel out of place in the map. Other than that possible aesthetic complaint I don't see any reason to care.

Share this post


Link to post

As someone sees where I'm coming from, I'll go to the effort to explain more thoroughly exactly what I'm saying. Maybe this thread can be of use after all.

In the "Heretic equivalent of Chocolate Doom?" thread, it was suggested that a utility be made so that mappers could legally use resources from multiple iwads in their pwads. This utility would be used by the pwad-player to combine the resources from multiple iwads into the pwad via some method or other, creating a copy of the pwad that would be illegal to distribute, but would legally have resources from multiple games. The pwad-player would thus have to own all iwads from which resources are taken to play the wad properly. However, as I tend to do in too many threads, I decided to introduce a different standpoint: this just might cause more problems than it really fixes.

If the long-standing practice of resource-ripping from other Doom era games continues, there will be no negative consequences. Raven and id have not indicated any disapproval of this practice, and whoever owns the rights to Strife doesn't seem to mind that their entire game is on abandonware sites. There is no external pressure to stop doing what we're already doing. The only problem with this is that it is, of course, illegal.

The proposed utility will solve this problem; it will give map makers a method by which to use external resources fully within the letter of the law. For this reason, I believe that such a utility probably should exist. However, there are several reasons why such a utility concerns me.

Most mappers will decide not to use this utility. Making maps that require this utility will limit the audience only to players who own all the iwads necessary. It absolutely should do this, as this is its purpose, but most mappers won't want this audience-limiting factor in their own work. Also, unless the utility's use is very simple and streamlined both for the mapper and the player, more mappers will avoid using it to avoid hassle. Thus, it's most likely that only a small group of mappers would decide to release their maps this way. This would be fine, as long as these mappers hold a live-and-let-live attitude. But, as this is the Doom community afterall, there's a very good chance that this minority would become very vocal. They may cause unnecessary tension every time another mapper rips resources and packages them in a wad. They could be another source of flame wars, tension and division. We might see just a few too many rants about the criminal ways of other mappers - even though Raven and id never seem to care, and even though most of us wad players seem to own all the iwads anyway.

Also, such a utility would be too limited to be useful anyway. It would be useful when resources are intended to be used exactly as they are in the iwads, but, most times when resources are taken from another game, they are edited in more complex ways than just a simple palette translation. Such a utility could easily put Heretic textures in a Doom wad, but there's no way that some automatic process could put Heretic-derived textures in a Doom wad. The small group of people who choose to use resources legally is suddenly up against a new artistic limitation - it's absolutely impossible for them to use textures derived from an iwad other than the iwad that their own pwad is for. This prevents the use of most of the available textures in the community. There just aren't a lot of high-quality, free-to-use, original textures floating around out there, and most of us lack the skill to make our own. If mappers are willing to accept this limit, that's fine, but if they then try to force other mappers to map in a more limited way, that's bound to cause some problems.

This is why it really just makes the most sense to continue what we're doing. It's not like resource theft is severe or ever will be; community policing has done a very good job of drawing the line of what sort of theft is inexcusable. We all instantly shun wads that use other levels as a base without permission, or include illegal mp3s, or violate the unwritten rules in some other way. This just isn't a problem worth worrying about.

I think it's a stretch to say that I'm "advocating" resource theft - it just doesn't bother me when people take textures, because Doom 2 maps with Hexen textures don't seem to bother anybody else either.

Share this post


Link to post

For the record, I knew exactly what you were suggesting originally, I just decided to pounce on a facet of the discussion which bugs me generally; the common-place acceptance of copyright abuse/theft.

I read what you're saying as "everybody does it, so that makes it ok".

FWIW I don't think it would be particularly ethical or moral of any coder in the DOOM community to write and distribute such a utility.

Share this post


Link to post

Then you've missed the point of the utility.

The mapper makes a wad file that's lacking some necessary texture data to run, but this wad is legally distributable because it doesn't have any stolen resources inside of it.

The player then uses this utility to merge textures from other iwads which he owns into the pwad. This would involve creating a new texture1 lump with all textures, and automatically translating textures to the new palette. The resulting wad has resources from at least one iwad in it, but this wad is not meant to be distributed. Therefore, all legal issues are avoided.

There are problems with this, as I listed, but I don't understand what your concern is. How is this immoral?

I still have the impression that you've gotten derailed somewhere along the line. I'll spell it out again: This utility would be the moral choice, because it avoids all possible legal issues and treats resources with excessive care. However, I came into this subject to say that this utility, if made, would be fairly impractical and would probably just turn texture ripping into flame-war material again. I'm arguing against the necessity of such a utility for the above reasons, but now you come in here to argue against this utility for the last reason I would ever expect (it's immoral?), so I've been forced to explain the benefit of the platform I don't support. This is so weird.

Can we get more people in here? I'm literally arguing with myself.

Share this post


Link to post

Just use a port that allows loading Heretic or Hexen as a pwad (giving access to the resources in them), for example: EDGE.

Share this post


Link to post
Creaphis said:

The player then uses this utility to merge textures from other iwads which he owns into the pwad. This would involve creating a new texture1 lump with all textures, and automatically translating textures to the new palette. The resulting wad has resources from at least one iwad in it, but this wad is not meant to be distributed. Therefore, all legal issues are avoided.


So basically anyone who uses this utility can only make maps for themselves, and not distribute them to others? I think one of the greatest things about mapping is letting other people play them after I'm done making them.

Share this post


Link to post
DaniJ said:

I read what you're saying as "everybody does it, so that makes it ok".

This is the opposite of what I believe. Just because everyone else does something does not mean it's OK. I'd swear I quote this all the time:

"What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right."

Resource theft doesn't directly affect me as I don't particularly mind seeing ripped textured and I tend to either use stock resources or create my own equivalents of other things I need. However, I see ripped textures a bit more than I'd like to. Every time I see a ripped texture, I always think to myself "Doesn't anybody care about this? I'm sure this texture shouldn't be allowed here."

As such, it would be good and well if there was a legal way to deal with this, though I see what Creaphis is saying that hardly anyone would elect to take a more difficult route to avoid a bad practice that no one minds if they do anyway, legal or otherwise. JohnnyRancid is right anyway... the legality is irrelavant if you aren't distributing anything.

Share this post


Link to post
JohnnyRancid said:

So basically anyone who uses this utility can only make maps for themselves, and not distribute them to others? I think one of the greatest things about mapping is letting other people play them after I'm done making them.


No no no no. This is why these posts should still be in the "Heretic equivalent of Chocolate Doom?" thread. They don't make any sense out here. I don't want to keep explaining somebody else's idea, but here we go again:

The MAPPER makes a wad file that IS distributable because it DOESN'T have ripped textures in it. The PLAYER uses this hypothetical utility to rip textures from his iwads into the wad AFTER downloading it. After this, the wad ISN'T distributable because it DOES have ripped textures in it.


I agree with Death-Destiny that there should be an easier way to use other resources or edited resources legally, as that would be the only solution that could please everybody. I don't want to start some ridiculous flame war in this very awkward out-of-context thread, so the most productive use of this thread would be if we could brainstorm some sort of compromise. I just had an idea; let me ask a question:

If there were ripped and edited resources inside a wad file, and this wad was freely distributed, but the wad could ONLY be run if the player had all the original iwads from which resources were taken, would this be legal?

Theoretically, if this is legal as far as copyright law is concerned (I really don't know if it is), then there could be a Doom port that checks whether the player owns all the proper iwads before loading a pwad with ripped resources. The wad would have to have a special lump inside the wad which would tell the port to search for certain other iwads, and the port wouldn't run the wad if some are missing. And, the wad as a whole would somehow need to be encrypted to prevent the player from just removing that lump. This would be a massive amount of work by port developers to implement, but less work for the mappers and players. Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post

interesting. ZBloodPack contained all the plutonia, hexen, hexen 2, stife and quake textures (only about 10% of them were used. heh) and yet DV II uses all these (and way, wayyyy more) an no one complains. my 2 cents?

i think its theft is when you willingly take someone else's property for your own personal use. when you use it artfully and in a well crafted manner, for everyone's public use, you're creating something new out of something old.

I don't think this applies to everything, but certainly things like textures shouldn't be exclusively for one man's project when someone else can use them better...

Share this post


Link to post

there was this project it
it's called H****Y i have
censored it because its too
good to mention but it's fun
it doesn't suck!!! He spent a
lot of effort on making a fun
game mega wad for doom 2 using
the levels from the other game
but ITS NOT ILLEGAL. NO WAD IS
PROVIDED. But he made it! It's t
the best wad deus vult II will
have a run for its money! You
guys are MEAN for hating this
project!!!! How could you! it
deserves a great and praising
review from the doomworld staff
and not call it a crap without
playing it!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Patrick Pineda said:

i think its theft is when you willingly take someone else's property for your own personal use. when you use it artfully and in a well crafted manner, for everyone's public use, you're creating something new out of something old.

I don't think this applies to everything, but certainly things like textures shouldn't be exclusively for one man's project when someone else can use them better...

Nonetheless, the legal definition of resource theft remains the same. Just as well, people are entitled to allow or disallow others to use the resources that they created, as they rightfully own them. While I agree it would be for the best if all resources were available for everyone to use, I don't like the idea we're headed to that anybody is entitled to use anyone elses property without their permission.

Share this post


Link to post
Patrick Pineda said:

i think its theft is when you willingly take someone else's property for your own personal use. when you use it artfully and in a well crafted manner, for everyone's public use, you're creating something new out of something old.


The funny thing is that this seems to be what decides whether resource ripping is a crime or not. So you ripped resources and made a crappy wad? It's theft. So you ripped resources and made a great wad? It's artistic genius. I'm not sure that the quality of the end product should be a factor on whether we consider theft as criminal or not. It would be more fair to if we could come to any sort of consensus, such as "ripping textures, sprites and music from the iwads is okay, ripping level data is not" which is more or less the rule we already abide by, or if we could find some method to use resources legally and easily.

I'm still mostly just thinking about iwad resources. When you consider theft from pwads it just becomes impossible to account for all situations. Blah

Share this post


Link to post
Creaphis said:

Then you've missed the point of the utility...

I've not missed the point of the utility. I fully understand what this hypothetical utility would do and why you are suggesting it. My comment had nothing to do with the utility itself, I was focusing on the issue of the apparent common acceptance regarding the use of ripped resources.

Please, don't explain what the utility would do again as it is quite a simple concept and one I'm quite capable of comprehending.

Share this post


Link to post

What annoys me is when someone makes a level for Heretic or Hexen, but rip out all of the resources and convert it to make it run for Doom2.wad "because more people have it." When you're ripping the whole game this way, why not be a bit less hypocritical and simply make it run for Heretic.wad or Hexen.wad, and distribute the iwad along? You can even delete the original map lumps, leaving just the markers to fool the engine. As far as piracy is concerned, it'd be the same thing -- no more, no less.

Share this post


Link to post

DaniJ: Ah, I see, so the immorality of such a utility is in that it encourages mappers to use the resources of other iwads, and even though it would be legal then, you consider it to be a distasteful practice regardless. I can respect that. Sorry that I kept assuming misunderstanding.

Gez: I agree, that crosses the line - no matter where the line is, or should be, or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Creaphis said:

The proposed utility will solve this problem; it will give map makers a method by which to use external resources fully within the letter of the law. For this reason, I believe that such a utility probably should exist.

Am I the only one here who remembers DeuTex/DeuSF? They were - in their day - the tools of choice to "legalise" wads that re-used resources from IWAD's.

The powers that be at id, Raven and elsewhere might be prepared to overlook the "borrowing" of copyrighted content where there's no commercial gain involved HOWEVER their forbearance shouldn't be mistaken for tacit approval of the practice. It is still breach of copyright. I'd like to see fewer ripped resources in wads but I don't know if we can - as a community - do more than establish unambiguous guidelines (if they don't alredy exist) and let the mappers wrestle with their consciences.

Share this post


Link to post

Someone in the ZDoom forums has asked someone from ID I believe, and the guy said that ripping texture from an Iwad for another was illegal (even from doom to doom2), but that it wasn't a major problem.
I've seen this from a link someone has posted here, can he post again this here ?

Share this post


Link to post

Creaphis said:
If there were ripped and edited resources inside a wad file, and this wad was freely distributed, but the wad could ONLY be run if the player had all the original iwads from which resources were taken, would this be legal?

I'm not sure about the legality, but the retardedness is clear enough. The method using DeuTex or a similar utility is clearly legal, easier to implement, and impervious to hacking. Loading an IWAD as a PWAD is even easier, if applicable.

I think it's a stretch to say that I'm "advocating" resource theft

No, it's quite accurate.

esselfortium said:
I can't help but find it kind of odd that some of us unquestioningly praise many of these wads, while at the same time yelling at anyone who dares to ask about it.

Who are "some of us"? I think that is the greatest flaw of some of those WADs, myself. I didn't know that SiD had Quake rippage, though. I wondered whether the new textures were new and if not, gotten with permission. Too bad, that's a bit of a disappointment in a great WAD.

While it's obviously illegal, and I suppose the morality of it is questionable, everyone seems to turn a blind eye to it unless someone makes it an issue.

Not really, but what are they going to do? The only things to do are to discourage ripping (the less the better) and to not do it oneself. Personally, I'm helping make Plutonia 2 cleaner and don't take stuff without permission for my own project.

Until Raven and id Software start filing suits against modders for putting their resources into each others' games (this will never happen), I don't mind whose resources someone is using, as long as they don't feel out of place in the map.

In other words, you only respect others when they force you to; when they bend your arm.

K!r4 said:
Someone in the ZDoom forums has asked someone from ID I believe, and the guy said that ripping texture from an Iwad for another was illegal (even from doom to doom2), but that it wasn't a major problem.

He didn't say anything about the degree of the problem, but rather what GreyGhost said above; just because they aren't starting a witch hunt because of it, it doesn't mean they think it's okay.

The latest EULA states:

2. Permitted New Creations. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and so long as you fully comply at all times with this Agreement, ID grants to you the non-exclusive and limited right to create for the Software (except any Software code) your own modifications (the "New Creations") which shall operate only with the Software (but not any demo, test or other version of the Software). ID reserves all rights not granted in this Agreement, including, without limitation, all rights to ID's trademarks. You may include within the New Creations certain textures and other images (the "ID Images") from the Software.

See here for what Hollenshead said as a reply to Risen of the KDiZD team.

Patrick Pineda said:
i think its theft is when you willingly take someone else's property for your own personal use. when you use it artfully and in a well crafted manner, for everyone's public use, you're creating something new out of something old.

It's not called theft (which is of material or financial property), but copyright infringement of a creative work. Whether contents from a work can be reused in another depends on the author. That's why WADs have a "you (may/may NOT) use this as a base" line in their text files. If you believe resources should be shared, share yours, and use what's shared in the same way. Otherwise you offend people who have released their work only to be played, but not edited.

Share this post


Link to post
myk said:

The latest EULA states:[/B]

2. Permitted New Creations. Subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and so long as you fully comply at all times with this Agreement, ID grants to you the non-exclusive and limited right to create for the Software (except any Software code) your own modifications (the "New Creations") which shall operate only with the Software (but not any demo, test or other version of the Software). ID reserves all rights not granted in this Agreement, including, without limitation, all rights to ID's trademarks. You may include within the New Creations certain textures and other images (the "ID Images") from the Software.

"which shall operate only with the Software" -- am I the only one who reads this as "making wads that can work with sourceports is a breach of the EULA"? :/

Share this post


Link to post

It says "except any Software code" in parenthesis precisely because it's not talking about source modifications, which are handled separately, according to either the DSL or the GPL.

Share this post


Link to post

Let say I am making a mod for ZDoom. It will not operate with the Software, but with "an other version of the Software" which is explicitly prohibited. Therefore, only vanilla mods are allowed, and even then they should be "protected" so as not to work with source ports.

That is, according to the EULA. (I could hijack the thread with a tangent on why EULA are the devil, but I'll refrain from doing so.)

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×