About limiting captures of demoscene productions
category: general [glöplog]
(the situation is completely different in the US where you can waive your moral rights)
Offering shitty captures as torrent download will be the next step in group warfare.
Quote:
the former cracker and warez scene now demands respect for their copyright :)
Quote:
Most of currently active demoscene defo ain't / weren't crackers, so trying to hold this against them is a bit pointless.
Indeed, and looking at the historical records of Compunet and similar platforms quickly reveals demoscene emerging from cracking scene to be a myth.
Both truly evolved in parallel, with just some overlap here and there.
Quote:
Public Domain doesn't really exist as such, at least in European laws. It's not possible to waive your moral rights to a production. The closest you can get to PD are licenses like CC0, 0BSD, etc.
As a content creator myself I think that CC licences are the future ;)
Quote:
What about GPLv3 for released source code? (Plus things like CC BY-SA for music and artwork.)CC licences are the future ;)
Quote:
Quote:What about GPLv3 for released source code? (Plus things like CC BY-SA for music and artwork.)CC licences are the future ;)
No idea xD
You may call me slightly autistic but it triggers me quite a bit to see one of our demos in 240p with red & blue channels swapped.
That's why we started to put a video disclaimer in our prods.
That's why we started to put a video disclaimer in our prods.
Quote:
::::::::
video-licence.txt
::::::::
Note to video sharers:
A great amount of time and passion went into making this demonstration look
and sound as good as possible. Watching videos of demos online via
sharing services like Vimeo, YouTube, or through Facebook
is a natural thing to do these days, and we all love it.
But it is increasingly embarassing for authors to see a great number of
carelessly captured demos (with bad resolution, framerate, compression,
sound quality, asynchronous timing, false aspect ratio, image faults,
missing parts, or name-tags and intros attached to them, etc.) seemingly
distributed just to increase the online credibility and social media metrics
of those that had nothing to do with the creative process whatsoever.
This is unfair use!
We do not endorse this development and would therefore like to ask you to
obey the following simple terms of use for this production:
1. Do not capture and share your own video-version of our work
when our work is the sole focus of your video.
2. You are not allowed to generate ad revenue from our content.
3. You are welcome to share links to the videos provided by us
on sites like YouTube or Facebook. In fact we'd love you to do so!
4. Any questions or asking for exceptions: please get in touch with us.
And now we hope that you enjoy watching this demonstration, be it on real
hardware, through emulation, from a video, or during the compo.
Just remember: sharing is caring!
That's a really good video license
krill, compunet...? LOL :)
I might start adding a video license too. How about this:
Quote:
With the exception of the party organizers for the purpose of streaming the event, you are not allowed to publish video captures of this demo, and you are not allowed to generate ad revenue or any kind of revenue from such captures. I do not care about and do not want your "effort", and I do not want publicity that your "effort" might bring.
Crappy captures are a thing, as many have pointed out.
Demo creators reserving the right to okay or deny publication of a given capture made by a third party is a-okay, imho. :)
Demo creators reserving the right to okay or deny publication of a given capture made by a third party is a-okay, imho. :)
What worries me is that there's nothing in the "video license" that shouldn't already be implicit, and has already been ignored for years.
(That channel is a fantastic example to the democapture cottage industry - overwhelming amount of terrible captures, no contact details, Paypal donation link, probably monetized too, and of course a shitty flippant attitude when you complain about the quality.)
There might be different opinions on what is a crappy capture. For my taste, live captures are best.
Our license terms use a similar wording as Dekadence:
And that's it, enforce PD for that? Ok, let's surrender all rights so that we can give up even the slightest hope to have any say in a defense against global corporations. When I took down a couple of captures, the Alphabet company turned out to be a total scripted bot AI disaster, which does nothing but ridicule art and humans.
Copy protection? There was a copy program in our last demo. Rip all tracks, and a slightly oversized ADF would've worked in UAE right from the beginning. :D
You can run the installer to write the demo to an emulator's MFM image. On EAB there's a standard size ADF mod. (Unfortunately it does this by removing, of all things, the copy program, meh. But this is some cool work, and scene spirited. :)
Our license terms use a similar wording as Dekadence:
Code:
(C) 20xx, The Electronic Knights
This work may not be broadcasted or
distributed in video form without an
explicit permission by the authors.
To inquire about a permission,
write to ...@...And that's it, enforce PD for that? Ok, let's surrender all rights so that we can give up even the slightest hope to have any say in a defense against global corporations. When I took down a couple of captures, the Alphabet company turned out to be a total scripted bot AI disaster, which does nothing but ridicule art and humans.
Copy protection? There was a copy program in our last demo. Rip all tracks, and a slightly oversized ADF would've worked in UAE right from the beginning. :D
You can run the installer to write the demo to an emulator's MFM image. On EAB there's a standard size ADF mod. (Unfortunately it does this by removing, of all things, the copy program, meh. But this is some cool work, and scene spirited. :)
For the record, I tried a "video license" before btw and the end result was a shitstorm.
I must say that I take back the thing about "PD", i did not really mean that, but rather some sort of CC.
Anyway, I only speak for myself, and noone else involved ;)
The "copy protection" thing was hilarious according to me xD
Anyway, I only speak for myself, and noone else involved ;)
The "copy protection" thing was hilarious according to me xD
Without hiring lawyers, all of this amounts to asking nicely, and it's not going to help against those who act in bad faith.
Quote:
Quote:Quote:What about GPLv3 for released source code? (Plus things like CC BY-SA for music and artwork.)CC licences are the future ;)
No idea xD
This is going a bit off-topic, but anyway... CC licenses are really not that great of a fit for code, while GPL and its cousins aren't really a good fit for assets.
Even Creative Commons themselves recommend against using CC licenses for software.
So if you distribute demo sourcecode, use a license that was made for code - GPL, BSD, MIT, you name it.
Quote:
Maybe forbidding captures whole-sale is slightly different than only allowing captures with explicit permission (and then maybe never granting that anyways). :)For the record, I tried a "video license" before btw and the end result was a shitstorm.
Quote:
Without hiring lawyers, all of this amounts to asking nicely, and it's not going to help against those who act in bad faith.
In my (limited) experience, youtube takedowns actually work when you're the creator of the demo.
One thought i dont really like as much is that i.e. +5 years after release the video link would go down and nobody really gets to upload a replacement due to being unable to contact the original authors anymore.
This thread reminded me that there's 44 seconds of precalc screen in the AssemblyTV capture of Cassini.
It'd be silly to complain to Assembly Organizing (besides, that was already kind of funny during the party), but at least I can add a link to our own capture.
It'd be silly to complain to Assembly Organizing (besides, that was already kind of funny during the party), but at least I can add a link to our own capture.
The main issue I see here about all this is that some groups have issues with shitty captures of prods or captures that are being monetized. But then again when your prod is out there it is somewhat inevitable for stuff like this to happen, unless you want to spend your entire life (and precious time) chasing youtube channels that dared to monetize or shitty capture your prod. And this leads me to my next argument: I don't really get this new demoscene trend of "I want my prod to be viewed by certain people who I choose, under a certain context because it is, after all, my prod." Why release it then in the first place? Just keep it in your hard drive and show it to a couple of friends if you really want something like this. And so that I do not get misunderstood, all I'm saying is that if something is in the wild, then it is in the wild, people will see it, capture it, share it, etc (and 99% without really asking for permission about all these actions).
Ah, I see the guy uploading my songs to Soundcloud (that are already on Soundcloud) decided to chime in.