heh, although i don't really have a problem with additional packs, what i saw when reading that list was:
1. asdfcza
2. dfasdfi
3. fflktrlk
4 classic/regular
5. pkljarkes
6. dfdsad
if anyone wants to put together the others, more power to you. i'd be happy to provide the photoshop actions, graphics and html files if for some reason they wanted to make the packs look the same.
He's even mentioned in the loathing.html guide that shipped on the Myth II CD that Bungie sold. He's on our About Us page here too.
oh, right ::digs into memory for perfect recall of unread loathing manual and/or once read about us page :: got it!
heh, anyway, i did mail him at that adress - hope it doesnt bounce back.
i also mailed leadFeather at the address in his shuffle readme. speaking of which, the only two maps on the list for which a readme (likely) exists, but that i do not have are leadFeather's borogrove and myopia.
sillek have those?
so, i think we should let this list stew for a bit. mb interested ppl could ask friends to check it and see if anything is missing - or if an included map is unworthy. i might start a poll just for grins.
next steps: distribution... i guess i can upload the archives to the udog hotline, then contact mythforums and mb playmyth to let them know its available if they want to put it on their sites. to adress blade's good point that many ppl will already have many of these files i could add links to each plug (at mythforums) within that preview interface. the interface could be used for the project description here at magma - thus allowing the dilligent to get only what they are missing.
promotion... news item here and at playmyth and a bluebar from bloo should be easy enough. i'm tempted to add a comment in the interface requesting that ppl with the pack(s) promote it in their quote and mb wear a tag early on to let ppl know they have it. that way, someone hosting a game where everyone wore "c05" could know that more maps are available to choose from. too conformist/dorky? at any rate, the concept that wide adoption of these packs (ppl just putting the plugs in and forgetting about it) will lead to fresh options of game choice needs to be brought home.
Ama, First of all, your arguing a moot point. Whether ChrisP believes he is legally obligated to adhere to your wishes or not is irrelevant. He has already clearly state that ethically he feels obligated, and ChrisP will do what he believes is the right thing to do, whether it's required by law or not.
As for the law in question, you have presented a very specific perspective on a very wide open statement. Yes, you are probably right about the intention of that statement. However, it's so vague and open ended it can easily be interpreted to say bungie owns everything that was touched by fear and loathing.
Again though, who really gives a fuck? In the end, you know that ChrisP (and the rest of magma) are going to do our best to live up to the requests of map makers. As if it even mattered in the context of this thread where magma has no involvement in this project aside from hosting it.
Pretty much the same advantage of Bungie putting all the single player campaign maps and their multiplayer maps on the CD instead of just the engine. It gives Myopia a chance to be as recognized as Willow Creek. Can you imagine how impossible it would be to find a game if you had to find and download all the Bungie maps individually.
"What's Grave?", "Where can I find Demise of the Plains?", "I was playing the original Single Player campaign and found that I don't have The Forge, does anyone know where I can find a copy?"
With a Universal Map pack folks will end up having all sorts of good maps that might not have otherwise tracked down and grabbed.
William Wallet wrote:So, what's the actual advantage of a Universal plugin? (I'm not shaggin yer idea or nowt - I just want to know peoples reasons for wanting one).
blades had the same question.
the answer lies in the practical process of a host picking a map to play while in pre on the pmnet server. he can ask "does everyone have hills of the crow version 2.0?" and get the answers "i have a lot of plugs, mb", "no" (when they actually have it), "yes" (when they dont), and (mostcommonly) "i don't know".
now, *if* this package were to become widely adopted (not a given) the host could ask "does everyone have the codex2005 maps loaded?" its possible ppl will forget they dl-d and installed an 80mb file... but less likely. if eveyone says yes, then the host can pick from 40 maps without asking again.
you can see the affect of this process by how maps from the magmaTFLpack are played on occasion now. prior to its release, the same maps in their separate plugs were rarely played. i can recall multiple occasions of *wanting* to play mudpit with ppl that all had it... but failing to do so after 10 mins of everyone loading a plug and not having the same version. now ppl will even play freaky maps like mudpit ghol riot because they have it and want variety.
the big key is for most active players to download the pack and load the plugins. as i said, not a given. i am hopeful a grass-roots promotion would make ppl get the packs.
Doobie wrote:Ama, First of all, your arguing a moot point. Whether ChrisP believes he is legally obligated to adhere to your wishes or not is irrelevant. He has already clearly state that ethically he feels obligated, and ChrisP will do what he believes is the right thing to do, whether it's required by law or not.
As for the law in question, you have presented a very specific perspective on a very wide open statement. Yes, you are probably right about the intention of that statement. However, it's so vague and open ended it can easily be interpreted to say bungie owns everything that was touched by fear and loathing.
Again though, who really gives a fuck? In the end, you know that ChrisP (and the rest of magma) are going to do our best to live up to the requests of map makers. As if it even mattered in the context of this thread where magma has no involvement in this project aside from hosting it.
No, it can't mean that. To transfer copyright you legally need to either put it in a will or have a written signed agreement that is notorized etc. Not to mention you retain rights to sell, which would be odd if you didn't keep the copyright. A contract to transfer copyright and grant distribution rights is going to be ALOT longer than 3 lines.
I'm not argueing with ChrisP. He asked me to explain it - so I am. If this is an arguement, I'll stop wasting my time.
And yes, I know no one gives a fuck about copyright law and ethics anymore. However I was asked to explain.
Besides, I'm not so sure he does feel ethically inclined to honor Bungies (now take twos I suppose) copyrights as Mazzarins Demise IV doesn't even contain a read me with the fear and loathing statement.
I suppose by his view, I can take it, steal someone elses units from someones project, throw it on the map, and release it as The Idiot Collective's Mazzarin's Demise V.
Hi Samsara. You're right, I asked you for your replies and found your answers informative. Thank you. I would like to continue but am pressed for time at the moment, however, I will say two things.
The lack of notice in Mazzarin's Demise's readme is an oversight I was unaware of till now. I wasn't the person who created the readme but I suppose that doesn't excuse me from any guilt. But... considering neither Bungie or Take 2 were or will be financially harmed in any manner, do you think anyone cares? Honestly.
And for the record, if you wanted to take any of my released plugins and derive your own (not-for-profit) work out of them, you'd be welcome to. Several times already people, without my permission, have made their own versions of Mazzarin's Demise by changing things around on the meshes. I can probably provide you links to the plugins on uDog HL if you like. For the life of me, I can't think of any reason whatsoever why I should be bothered about what is done with the maps I've released. It's not like someone else is making money off of my ideas or taking away my credit. What exactly is it that bothers you about the idea?
Oh, and a third thing, you should probably try to avoid blanket statements like "no one gives a fuck about copyright laws or ethics anymore". They make you sound whiney.
Well, yes, obviously someone must care - some of the artists who made the plugins care or we wouldn't be having this discussion. For example, Clem seems to care, as do probably many others.
Alot of money and man hours can be put into making a quality plugin. For people to try to protect the money/time they spent on something doesn't seem so crazy to me. What if they wanted to somehow publish something else later in life with that work? There are legal reasons to protect ones copyrights, especially if they may ever want to use the work again.
Some of us care about our intellectual property, others don't. Thats fine. Just respect those that do (or might.)
What exactly is it that bothers you about the idea?
Well, I suppose the worst part of the scenario (since you don't care about people using mazz) would be the taking of units without permission for it. ("steal someone elses units from someones project") Theft of others hard work to acheive ones own ends just seems wrong to me.
I also am short on time, and have far too little of it lately to continue to squander in this thread. I doubt I'll visit it again.
the server is hl.udogs.net, login as guest with no password or leave it all blank, can't remember which. You can upload to the uploads folder & let one of the admins know its there once its up
Well, yes, obviously someone must care - some of the artists who made the plugins care or we wouldn't be having this discussion. For example, Clem seems to care, as do probably many others.
I already know artists care about their own work, but my question related to Project Magma’s oversight of not including Bungie’s copyright notice in the Mazzarin’s Demise readme, specifically if anyone cared about that oversight considering the non-commercial distribution of the plugin.
Mainly this is to protect Bungie - for example, if some yahoo were to take Raid on the Plains, change it to a snow map, put it in a plugin, and try to say its their own artistic work without putting the Bungie copyright on it (in whole or in part), they are stealing Bungies ip.
Thank you for providing Bungie’s instructions regarding copyright notice. You’re right, I should have my Myth II manual but I seem to have lost track of it along with the paperwork for anything else I bought in 1998. Too bad because I’m still curious as to what else Bungie states in its EULA for Myth. Upon reading what you copied though, I must admit that I think you’re correct (in whole or in part) about third parties not relinquishing their rights to their IP. However, I think there’s more to it.
First of all, I don’t believe Bungie’s copyright is designed to ensure artistic acknowledgment. In your example using ‘Raid on the Plains’, the artist was subcontracted, and to my knowledge, was never officially an employee of Bungie, so I fail to see how “Copyright 1998 in whole or in part Bungie Software Products Corporation.†gives the artist any credit.
Instead I believe the copyright – essentially the right to control distribution – is to prevent anyone else from making money without Bungie’s or Take 2’s consent. For instance, the copyright prevents me from commercially publishing my own compilation of maps, say, in the manner which Myth Worlds was published by Take 2.
It is naïve to think it’s not all about money and nothing but money, especially when it comes to giant corporations like Take 2. I perused your links to copyright information and one interesting, though not surprising, thing is how U.S. copyright protections, almost exclusively, deal with safeguarding financial interests. Great Britain, on the other hand, has a much more specific protection for artistic credit called a ‘Moral Law’.
Back to Bungie’s copyright though: apparently Bungie does insist on owning copyright to plugins, and they clearly state that such plugins may be freely distributed. Of this I was aware, but I think you are right in pointing to the part that states “in whole or in partâ€. Logically this seems to imply that the copyright to the plugin may be shared, which for all practical intents, creates a situation where neither Bungie nor the author (or any additional party) may resell the plugin without the other’s consent.
So I stand humbly corrected. My presumption was that while the author would retain copyright to his content, the copyright to the plugin itself was strictly Bungie’s - sort of like the relationship between a copyrighted photograph and a magazine, where the photographer would retain the copyright to their photograph, but not control of how the magazine was distributed. I did not think that copyright of the plugin itself was ever transferred by the author so much that the author never had a copyright of the plugin (as a vehicle for his content) in the first place.
That resolved, I think there is little else that we essentially disagree upon. I certainly agree a mapmaker’s potential to earn a financial profit from their work, as far fetched as it may be, should not be compromised, but going back to the original subject of this thread, which is the creation of Igmo’s mappack, I really don’t see how the inclusion of any maps, which have long been available for free, could conceivably cause any financial harm - but I suspect that was never really the underlying issue of our debate. Instead it was about respect.
Thank you again for your time and the information you provided, Samsara. I found it enlightening.
So if I understand what's been explained here, a PLUGIN can be LEGALLY freely distributed by anyone at anytime regardless of the author's wishes because of the fact that the author never owned any copywrite on the plugin in the first place? (I'm not questioning the MORAL obligations one might feel to abide by the content authors instructions, but rather the hard cold legal facts)
How can you see out of the corner of your eye when your eye is round?
