Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday July 31 2018, @05:27AM   Printer-friendly
from the Godzilla-stomping-action dept.

TorrentFreak:

After more than a quarter-century, SimCity 2000 still receives plenty of interest from nostalgic gamers who like to relive their early gaming experiences. This is likely one of the reasons why developer Nicholas Ochoa decided to code a remake using the Electron framework.

The game, titled OpenSC2K, was released on GitHub earlier this year and received quite a bit of attention on sites such as Reddit and Hacker News.

While it is billed as an “open source” version, the remake did include original artwork, belonging to Electronic Arts. These images and sounds are definitely not free to use, something the developer is fully aware of now.

A few days ago Electronic Arts sent a DMCA takedown notice to GitHub asking the platform to remove the infringing repository from its site.

“Assets from the game SimCity 2000 are being infringed upon,” EA writes. The company points out that the game can be purchased legally through Origin where it’s still being sold for a few dollars.

While OpenSC2K is far from a full remake, Electronic Arts makes it clear that the SimCity 2000 assets are not for public use.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:36PM (2 children)

    by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:36PM (#715196) Journal

    > If programmers aren't keeping track of this kind of thing, or don't even understand that they need to, they can taint the entire codebase.

    While all this is true, should it be?

    > every line of code is mine or licensed (and documented, so I can prove where it came from), and every sprite, sound, music, anything like that is licensed or attributed (again, with proof, because this stuff has a tendency to disappear over the years yet I can say "I downloaded it, it was showing this licence, on this URL, these are the emails from the author giving me permission, etc."

    Exactly what I mean. All that sounds unduly burdensome, and for what? Fairness to authors and producers? Or, more like chilling and stifling competition? It's crazy that you should have to be ready in case someone wants to go on a fishing expedition and comb through everything you've ever done. Supposing you didn't preserve some crucial email? Are you now guilty until proven innocent? At least the cops searching your car for drugs deals with the present and immediate past only, not stuff from 15 or more years ago.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by ledow on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:58PM (1 child)

    by ledow (5567) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @02:58PM (#715205) Homepage

    It's really not that burdensome. Hell, it's one "Save As" or a small tag on a file. If we can "git blame" software writers, we sure as hell can put in a line about where a file that takes HOURS to make came from, and who made it, and what licence is was provided under.

    Compared to writing a game from scratch, it's literally minutiae lost in the noise.

    The alternative? People literally just nicking Mario images and shoving them in games, making carbon-copies of apps with the same graphics and assets, and no artist or musician wanting to give you their work.

    Yes. I've hired artists and musicians for in-game assets. I then save the files they send me (usually by email, and I have every email going back to the year 2000 - it's really not that burdensome to "keep" something, compared to "choose what to delete"), and keep them in folders with their names and a copy of their terms/conditions/contract. The free assets I download, I store in a folder called by the website name (e.g. opengameart or whatever), and the filename includes their username. Past that all I have to do is record the licence they were under (in case it changes under me later).

    It's really not that hard. Not even for someone with ZERO admin expertise, who just wants to focus on the coding. I also do the same for libraries used - this is the library, this is where I got it, this is my compiled version/branch of it, this is the LICENSE file. One folder and you have it all (e.g. SDL_image folder, containing a zip file downloaded from the official website, extracted into a subfolder, done). Not hard, but very important when someone later realises you made, say, millions out of some Box2D Scorched Earth mix-up with some circular birds and green pigs and says that you stole his art or, as in this case, EA comes knocking to your EA-asset rip-off project.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:48PM

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Tuesday July 31 2018, @03:48PM (#715231) Journal

      > It's really not that burdensome. Hell, it's one "Save As" or a small tag on a file.

      Smart viruses that reduce your system performance by only 1%, exercise a little restraint the better not to be noticed, aren't that burdensome either. How about automatic login, is that much of a burden removed? Yet people want it.

      > The alternative? People literally just nicking Mario images

      See? You are infected with "copyrightitis". That word "nicking" does not describe what they are doing. They are NOT stealing, they are copying.

      And "nicking" is not the sole alternative.

      > no artist or musician wanting to give you their work.

      What exactly are we talking about here? Give? For free? If they are willing to do that with copyright, why not without copyright? Particularly as long as attribution is kept? Or is it really plagiarism to which they object? Don't need copyright to keep attribution.