Olympic Web Site Features Pirated Content 235
An anonymous reader writes "Despite all the emphasis on protecting Olympic copyrights in China this year, the official web site of the Beijing Olympics features a Flash game that is a blatant copy of one of the games developed at The Pencil Farm. Compare the game on the Olympic site with 'Snow Day' at The Pencil Farm."
You got it wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Yawn! (Score:5, Funny)
They should be grateful (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They should be grateful (Score:4, Insightful)
Coca Cola did the same... but sortof fixed it. (Score:5, Informative)
Two weeks later it was reported that Joel Feitch got well compensated for it (exact amounts were not disclosed as part of the agreement).
Read all about it here [robmanuel.com], with accompanied footage.
The Chinese version doesn't even make sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Social Commentary about China's pollution? (Score:3, Funny)
Of course this: http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8874472 [economist.com]Economist article seems to not be loading right now, but they even have a blue sky monitoring scale which counts days without brutal amounts of smog, and are trying to figure out if they can somehow control the weather.
Re:Social Commentary about China's pollution? (Score:2)
http://kerrycollison.net/index.php?/archives/5379-Talking-dirty-in-China-Beijing-wants-to-clear-the-air-for-the-Olympics.html [kerrycollison.net]
I guess I was thinking about cloud seeding when I originally read that article
Probably off-topic but what the hell... (Score:5, Insightful)
FWIW I am not interested in the Beijing Olympics. Any lingering interest in the event has been soured by the appalling way that Chinese citizens have been treated by their government and, by extension, the IOC. No sports event in the world is worth evicting, beating, imprisoning and killing your own citizens for.
Re:Probably off-topic but what the hell... (Score:3, Interesting)
First of all, it's a friend of my father-in-law's, not his brother. Secondly, I have never met this chap and have never been in his hotel, although I have seen it. Thirdly, I didn't say where this hotel is. I have no interest in promoting his hotel, nor can anything in my post be taken as such. It was just an example of the IOC's zeal in enforcing its trademark.
The second paragraph was a mild piece of self-indulgence, making the point that whatever charges of plagiarism, copyright theft, etc which can be made against the IOC, it is as nothing compared to the hundreds, possible thousands of lives ruined in Beijing in pursuit of these Olympics.
Re:Probably off-topic but what the hell... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Probably off-topic but what the hell... (Score:2)
Re:Probably off-topic but what the hell... (Score:2)
Heavy Handed Hypocrisy (Score:5, Interesting)
US: http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=15360 [dvorak.org]
CA: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1777/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]
UK: http://blogs.reuters.com/uknews/2008/02/06/olympic-tussle-over-a-name/ [reuters.com]
Given the IOC and each local Olympic committee's approach trademark ownership, they should have no problem removing the game.
This is unlikely because, they will not treat other's work the same as they want theirs enforces. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Re:Heavy Handed Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Please note that we are a major corporation or something. Laws exist to protect *OUR* copyrights and trademarks. As a major entity, we are allowed to do whatever the hell we want.
Thank you,
The IOC
So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
You are looking at two different uses of the word 'copy', or rather, at two different levels of copying. Scrabulous copies the rules of Scrabble in a game developed by different people, and if there was a lawsuit for every internet game that - to put it mildly - took a great deal of inspiration from another, none of us would be able to move for the boxes full of litigation papers. This, on the other hand, is different, because it copies actual code and graphics from the original. You cannot legally protect game rules, but you can legally protect code and artwork.
There is also an irony issue here, in that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has always gone after people even vaguely infringing *it's* copyright with all the teeth-baring viciousness of a rabid attack dog, so to have a website associated with them involved in blatant copyright infringement is more than a little amusing, but that takes a back seat to the difference between the actual legal issues of the two.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
You can make accusations of hypocrisy when you have collected some statistics that show that the majority of Slashdot posters hold both the contradictory views you mention. Shouldn't be too hard to prove, if it's that blatant.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:4, Insightful)
Please name the posters that have demonstrated this hypocrisy. Fiding posts FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE that are inconsistent is not unexpected when there are upwards of one million members.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
I think its stupid that we live in a world where downloading a song lands you 100K in leagal damages. but if its such a big deal when the little guy questionably infringes on some entieties copyright/trademak/patent what have you then it should be just as big a deal when the little guys work gets infringed upon.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Besides, as is said so many times: there many different people that post here with a diverse range of views.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
Right, because you can point me to a story where:
* The FSF has lobbied for laws tightening copyright laws or introducing new ones like the DMCA.
* A GPL copyright holder has sued individuals for distributing a GPL piece of software without source code over p2p (preferably for billions of dollars) (as opposed to a commercial company violating the GPL).
* A link to comments where the same person has claimed that copyright shouldn't exist when talking about the RIAA or MPAA, but also claimed that copyright should exist when talking about the GPL.
And see my other post - there's also the hypocrisy of the IOC to consider. Grandmothers sued by the RIAA usually haven't spent their time suing everyone else left right and centre about usages of words.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
You CAN'T take the source code, rip out the author's information and publish it as entirely your own.
2) The RIAA and MPAA have copyrights, and I'll acknowledge them. The problem I have with the AAs is the fact that they unfairly litigate and punish people using a broken law. Then they try to tell me that I can't copy my CD to my iPod without buying the song again. Oh, and goodness help me if I want to make an MP3 copy for my car's MP3 CD player! I'm not stealing their music and turning around at telling people that I made it.
So I guess what I'm saying is: Damn right. The dude who made that game and copyrighted it should at least *get credit* for writing it. I'd bet even a special thanks, or better yet *permission to use the game* would've been positive steps.
And screw the AAs. They're too busy trying to screw me for me to care what they want.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Attitudes toward record industry vs. GPL (Score:2)
If there were no copyright, copyleft wouldn't be necessary. If somebody were to try to take a Free program proprietary in a world without copyright, someone else would disassemble it, comment it, and post it to some comp.sources group.
But the record industry is a different matter entirely. Music publishers have successfully sued people for accidentally copying a couple bars from a proprietary song into their own songs. The precedent set by cases such as Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music and Three Boys Music v. Michael Bolton ends up having a chilling effect on composers [slashdot.org]. It is possible to avoid reading proprietary computer programs so that you don't taint yourself with access to a work, but it's much more difficult to avoid listening to the proprietary music that a retail store plays.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
It doesn't sound fair, but either is the law for the little guy. It would only take one time for this to "fix" the problem.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:2)
Actually, Scrabulous is likely to be removed soon [news.com]. You do have some degree of copyright protection over game rules, and people do patent the damned things all the time. See also: KC Munchkin.
Re:Atari v. Philips, or Lotus v. Borland? (Score:2)
The implementation is subject to copyright. The public interface may also be subject to copyright to the extent that it contains expression (for example, the appearance of an icon).
And games, being somewhat superfluous in nature, are generally more expressive than business software. You're allowed to duplicate non-expressive functionality in software. Are you allowed to duplicate expressive functionality? Or board layouts / rule sets? Scrabulous specifically falls derivative enough to Scrabble on so many axis that I would hesitate to call it "OK."
Do They Have Slashdot in China? (Score:2)
Now we know why the Chinese government built the Great Firewall...
Re:Do They Have Slashdot in China? (Score:2)
Lets say you are a happy Ubuntu user but somehow interested in Olympic content. As Icaza (future author of future clone) already started whining, the only way to watch videos from official site will be install windows. As nobody will pay for Windows, they will pirate it, an american product! Guess who is the king of Windows piracy? China! That is the real red conspiracy my friend!
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,143232-page,1/article.html [pcworld.com]
WTO membership implies some things about © la (Score:2)
This is a good reason why... (Score:2)
...pirates have no respect for copyright. The holders of copyrights apparently only respect their own.
They demand that others respect their copyrights and then turn around violate others. How many times have we seen stories where this happened? I've lost count.
nevermind the law... (Score:2)
Re:nevermind the law... (Score:2)
Re:nevermind the law... (Score:2)
Part of the culture (Score:2)
The sad thing for China is that unless this culture changes, it's going to be a very long time before products of any kind coming from there will be accepted by the rest of the world with the same kind of lax inspection standards ones from the West enjoy. Thus, on a per-capita basis, China will never catch up.
You reap the whirlwind....
That's not the only copy... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah that's exactly the same sort of thing. (Score:2, Insightful)
C'mon there is a difference between stealing someones game and tweaking it _without license_ and writing a game that is somewhat similar in game play but completely different.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:2, Informative)
It's a byte-perfect copy of many of the elements in the game, sound and graphics. So it really is a copyright violation.
It's simply re-skinning some elements and publishing it as your own. Like taking Windows, make the default background red, and selling it as your own operating system.
Sorry (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Fair use (Score:5, Insightful)
In a nutshell, "Fair use" means taking another's copyrighted material for academic or critical purposes. Instead, this (assumed) copyrighted material has been taken for neither of those purposes - instead, it is used to make a website more fun for kids.
And furthermore, 16% of a document/book/program likely goes far beyond fair use for even academic, scholarship, or critical use.
If these "copyrighted materials" had no value, then the developers should have simply included their own materials instead of someone else's content.
FURTHERMORE, to say that 16% of a book, movie, song, or other work is "small enough" to be considered fair use is simply ludicrous. The percentage of material is irrelevant to the copyright. A film is made of over 100,000 still images, yet a single 35mm photograph doesn't have 1/100,000th the copyright protection of a film.
Re:Fair use (Score:2)
Ok, true... but a single frame of a film can be copied under fair use while the film in its entirety cannot.
Your description of fair use is also incomplete (it's not just study or criticism, it can also be time-shifting, transient copying for certain purposes, backups of software and a few other things). I'm tired though, so I'll let someone else explain all this.
Re:Fair use (Score:2)
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:5, Interesting)
From your link:
This is China. Not United States. If you post a relevant link to the Chinese copyright laws and their notion of fair use, that would be informative and interesting.
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:5, Informative)
Here y'go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights [wikipedia.org]
Note that China is a participant in TRIPS (follow the link at the bottom t'see all participating countries). Software copyright is addressed (it is treated as a literary work under this agreement), and fair use is very limited.
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:2)
What goes around [www.cbc.ca] comes around.
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:2)
Nope. Ever heard of advertising revenue? How about non-free items included with the free ones? Ever hear of a company called Red Hat?
That's about the value of a music CD of your favorite band. Now, someone remind me, what is the fine for illegally redistributing copyrighted material?
Would it? [wikipedia.org]
Re:It is NOT fair use, or even close to it. (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost for commercial use of a work, even if that work is freely provided for non-commercial use, is whatever price the author decides on for a differently-licensed copy. Look at the business model used by Trolltech -- do you think that the availability of a GPLed version of Qt makes the commercially-licensed one somehow less valuable? Likewise, if $20 is in fact the market value for use of a flash game on an average commercial web site (which I don't accept -- look at how much Disney pays for the games freely available for children to play on their websites), do you seriously think that most licensors will leave that price in place if the customer wishes to rebrand their product and remove all acknowledgements? Those changes cost money -- as acknowledgement is valuable in drumming up future business -- and this claim of a $20 market value is ludicrous on its face.
In this case, no pricing had been published or offered for commercial use -- but surely that information would have been available on request.
It's perfectly legal to copy. (Score:2)
As long as you change the elements that are copyrightable (images, music, etc.), everything else is fair game. The gameplay can be the exact same.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
cubes.png [palli.nl]
You can look hard you can see the gamma is a little different between them, but how are they not the same image?
Are you willing to tell me that these are images made by two different persons that just happen to make it look exactly the same?
Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:3, Informative)
They didnt strip out a lot of the unused resources.
Many of the original game files are still in there even when they arent used.
It doesnt take a genius to realise that many of the graphics and sounds are identical as well.
It appears like they did rewrite the code but its still a blatant copy.
They based it from the original swf, they didnt start from scratch.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2)
I remember him threatening to beat up anyone who bought an iPhone, then denied that he was morally wrong to do so.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Funny)
Smells like trouble for the US job market
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Odd that the graphics are just about all the same in both games. The differences are trivial.
Looks more like someone purposefully made the scripts different, so that they could point and say "Lookee, it's different. See? It's not the same at all. Look at the code. Different." As if they knew ahead of time that there were potential copyright conflicts, and were trying to make an end run around copyright law.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2)
Just an added thought to you question:
What's the possibility that two different programmers who presumably speak different languages working independently and exclusive of one another,Re:Bullshit. (Score:2)
Re:Bullshit. (Score:2)
From China:
bonus_mc.bonusPtsTXT.text = score;
bonus_mc.bonusCtTXT.text = "X" + _loc5.length;
bonus_mc._alpha = 100;
bonus_mc._x = ice_mc._x;
bonus_mc._y = ice_mc._y;
From the other one:
bonus_mc.bonusCtTXT.text = "BONUS X " + cloudCount;
bonus_mc.bonusPtsTXT.text = cloudCount * 100;
score = score + cloudCount * (cloudCount * 10);
bonus_mc._x = xpos;
bonus_mc._alpha = 100;
bonus_mc._y = ypos;
Yeah, you're right, they aren't even close. If I got this in a CS class, I would fail someone.
Why would you bother ripping off the code? Any decent Flash jockey could re-write this game in an hour or two. However, any low-paid, entry-level programmer in another country could just take the code and decide no one will notice.
Not just a copy... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd also like to point out that this is not just a clone of my game. They didn't see my game and set out to make a similar game. They actually stole my game. I'll say it again:
The Olympics stole my game.
They downloaded the swf file from my site, decompiled it, swapped out the little guy for the Fuwa characters, took my name off of it and republished it as their own. I can tell this is what happened because they are still using some of my original art from Snow Day (the clouds and the ice cube are exactly the same). I also took the liberty of decompiling their game and actually found it still contains the sound files from Snow Day, even though they aren't being used in the Olympic version. It even still has the splash sound effect from The Lake (I used the engine from The Lake to make Snow Day and must have forgot to delete this file).
Re:Not just a copy... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not just a copy... (Score:2)
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:2, Insightful)
Unfortunately, if my assumption is true, since this is hosted in china there's not much the author can do. Eric Baumer has stolen more shit then this cinese olympic site, and as far as i know, hundreds of flash developers never got their money's worth from him, so the owner of snowday is outah luck too.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they clearly did decompile the original Flash file and just swapped a few (though not all) art resources. The clouds aren't suspiciously similar... they're the same. The snow, mechanic, ice art, launching art, health bar, etc aren't just similar, they're identical. The tuning seems to be the same, with the same launch times, etc.
It's true that the Chinese are known for copying things. And that flash games get copied a lot more than they should. But the olympic games are notorious for enforcing their copyrights over the slightest infraction by others. Having the Olympics casually steal other developer's work in this fashion seems extremely self-contradictory.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:2)
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:2)
He even says he decompiled their game and found remnants of code that he reused from other games he made which have nothing to do with this one.
So it's a lot more than just a knock-off. It's an alleged derivitave work without permission.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:2, Interesting)
(2) Unless they actually copied exact content then there's no copyright issue I can see, just lack of creativity.
Mod score +Five Insightful for the two individual concepts.
Mod score -TwelveBazillion Didn'tReadTheFuckingArticle.
-
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, think about it -- in the Chinese game, your goal is to make the clouds *go away* so you have blue sky.
So, obviously, you hit them with ice cubes. And they go away?
NO, they start snowing on you.
The fact that they didn't even change that detail from the original game -- and it would have been a fairly trivial change! -- looks pretty bad to me.
No copyright on game idea, title, rules, gameplay. (Score:3, Informative)
Remember, you can't copyright the rules of a game - not even in the US of A.
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html [copyright.gov]
Re:No copyright on game idea, title, rules, gamepl (Score:2)
Again. RTFA.
Its legal in China ... (Score:3, Informative)
Here's the relevant clause of the Berne Covention [wipo.int]:
Since they don't exactly give their own nationals very much in the way of individual copyright protection, the use of a foreigner's material is no more protected than their own people's - in other words, no protection: This is legal under the Berne Convention.Since they are giving his material the same protection they would give works by their own people ("if the gov't want to use it, they can by fiat or emminent domain"), they can copy all they want for any official Chinese agency. Not only is it not "theft" (remember - even member nations don't regard copyright infringement as theft), its legal.
Also, instead of just reading the article, try both of the games. The chinese version plays smoother.
Too many posters are going down the "copyright fair use" track, which is totally irrelevant to the discussion. Yes, the music and images, and *some* of the code are protected - but not for public use in China by the government or its' designates.
Also, under chinese law, he has no claim anyway, even if it was a patent or trademark infringement instead of copyright. He has to be in a minority partnership with a chinese agent/business.whatever or he simply can't do business under chinese law. Only businesses which are either majority or completely owned by chinese nationals are legal in China. - so he has no standing for damages.
"No cake for you, round-eyes!"
Re:No copyright on game idea, title, rules, gamepl (Score:2)
Re:No copyright on game idea, title, rules, gamepl (Score:2)
And under the Berne Convention, they only have to give foreign works the same level of protection they give works by their own nationals. In other words, the Chinese government or its' designates are free to copy code, images, and the song of foreigners to the same extent they would with their own people. In other words, they can copy whatever they want and still be in compliance.
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:5, Informative)
If true that's beyond coincidence or imitation.
What de-compiler do you use? (Score:2)
Closed source flash tools [osflash.org] lists only one decompiler. The Open Source Flash Projects [osflash.org] list has no decompilers.
Re:What de-compiler do you use? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Chinese copies? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Article presents no evidence of copying?? (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously RTFA.
Re:Article presents no evidence of copying?? (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm... what? Did you read the article? It specifically does exactly what you say it does not do. It includes screenshots to show that many of the graphics are stolen (pixel for pixel exactly the same, not an approximation). And it includes text from the creator of the original game, documenting how he reviewed their game code and discovered that it was completely stolen, not clean-roomed. From the article:
I'm pretty sure that if the game the Olympics is using contains sound files that are basically leftover stubs from his other games then that's pretty damning evidence.
Re:Article presents no evidence of copying?? (Score:4, Informative)
Any lawyers out there fancy taking on the Chinese Olympic Committee? Might not be a good idea... [guardian.co.uk]
Actually, It works EXACTLY like that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually, It works EXACTLY like that. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:5, Insightful)
This is good old-fashioned copyright infringement, with no ambiguity at all. And not only are you wrong, you're being a dick about it. What do you have against the author of the original game?
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope there are no vulnerabilities in Flash.
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment 1: That's not how copyright works. No explanation of why.
Comment 2: Really? How so?
Comment 3: Bad summary.
Comment 4: Actually, copyright does work that way.
Comment 5 (your comment): I have nothing to say, but I'll try and take you down a peg or two by making an inane comment.
The bottom line is: you haven't actually contributed anything yourself. Reread your own comment - it's not exactly full of information - interest or insightful.
Re:Copyright doesn't work like that (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't get mad, get even (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't get mad, get even (Score:2)
Re:Don't get mad, get even (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Because when the IOC sues you, "they did it first" is a perfect defence.
Re:Enforcing the Copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's try that argument out again, with a small difference:
Let's say the original show is "Firefly." I create a work called "CowboyNeal in Space." I shoot some of my own scenes with their own dialogue and characters, but for the most part "CowboyNeal in Space" still uses scenes, music, dialog, CG from "Firefly." Some of those copied scenes reference things that don't even exist based on the "CowboyNeal in Space" scenes (e.g. referring to the captain as "Malcolm Reynolds" instead of "CowboyNeal").
Am I gonna get the living #$*% sued out of me if I upload it to Youtube? Faster than Mal can say "shiny." I've done exactly what the website has done - taken an original work, tweaked a few things to make it fit my needs, forgotten to tweak some things causing continuity reasons (the presence of snow and ice cubes), and posted it.
The fact that "Firefly" was free to watch (when it did air on Fox; obviously watching it on DVD or Sci-Fi Channel meant you had to pay for them) doesn't mean it's okay to copy it. The value of the asset has nothing to do with whether it's protected by copyright. If you put it in the public domain and waive all copyright protection, it's free game. If you use a very small portion for limited academic purposes (or other fair use purposes), you shouldn't be sued, but it depends on the amount of the original work used and in what context. But free != public domain. Unfortunately the internets propagate this myth.
OK, it's a blatant ripoff. (Score:2)