Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Exact resource copy?

If that's the case, the authors should have included a copy of the Freedoom copyright in the text file.

I don't really think it's a huge problem though. Part of the point of Freedoom is to provide a collection of free material for WAD authors to use. It's a shame that they didn't credit Freedoom but they are using it for its intended purpose.

Share this post


Link to post

Sort of off-topic:

Who's saying that this WAD took the sound from Freedoom and not the other way around? Or the sounds in both that WAD and Freedoom were ripped (illegally) from the same source? Ok, since the plasma sound was submitted by Julian it's pretty sure to assume that it's his original work, but what about less "trustworthy" contributors? IIRC we had cases where people submittet ripped content simply because they didn't realize that that's a no-go.

The last problematic content was just 2 months ago, and that should have been quite an obvious offending resource, but it was in there for quite some time. Who knows how much other illegal content is in Freedoom at this very moment?

I think there should be some online system where users can rate each resource as "looks ok", "definitely good", "may be problematic", "bad" etc, plus a comment system to further explain each users decision (for example the original source with ripped content or something like "I've heard that sound in commercials X, Y and movie Z, probably from a sound library" etc).

Newly submitted resources should not be put into Freedoom directly, but rather run through that "quality control" system beforehand.

Share this post


Link to post

boris said:
Newly submitted resources should not be put into Freedoom directly, but rather run through that "quality control" system beforehand.


Freedoom-submissions.wad !
Load up latest release with freedoom-submissions.wad for all submissions since. I think this can be fit into the build script.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's safe to assume most copyright violations are the result of ignorance rather than intentional malice. No quality control system is going to be foolproof; there are literally millions of potential sources that copyrighted material could come from. I think education is a better approach. Simply ask new contributors, "is this all 100% your own work? did you make it all yourself, from scratch, not using any existing {graphics/music/sound effects/delete as appropriate} to make it?".

It's important to phrase the question so as to remove any possibility of ambiguity - people could potentially make a sound effect by layering a bunch of existing sounds they found on a website, for example, and believe that was "all their own work". To use an analogy, it's rather like people who rip graphics from games to make sprite sheets, and attach a note to the bottom demanding attribution from anyone who uses them. It's a limited worldview combined with ignorance of copyright law.

This isn't to say that I think new material shouldn't be reviewed: it definitely should be, also for quality control reasons. However, I think we should be careful to avoid barriers for new submissions. I also think it's important not to be condescending: it won't help to attract new contributors if you show that you don't trust them after you've confirmed that what they've submitted is original.

Share this post


Link to post

How do you conclusively prove something is legit? You can't. My take is deal with problems as they are noticed. Some energy spent on education and submission criteria is worthwhile too. Otherwise you'll spend all your time looking increasingly hard for things that might not be there and not getting anything constructive done.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0