category: general [glöplog]
lately, talks on pouet.net involved:
- ripping: Melon. sucks ripping design companies
- scene music stolen
- giving proper credits to the authors of any artwork

a lot of musicdisks came to day light (here, here or here) and IT WAS BAD because IT WAS RIPPED MUSIC !!!

how many times I read comments like "you should have asked for proper authorization !" "before posting your shit please contact the original authors" and so on ...

so, how does it apply to Freax ?
is the disclaimer on the website enough: "If your work is included in the book, you're entitled for a free copy. In this case, please place an order on CSW Verlag Shop, and tell us who you are." enough ?

to quote someone else, it is rather ""ok we used your graphics without your consent, but here's a book, shut up"

i talked to splif lately and he was surprised to discover that his artwork has been published without any notification...

i don't care whether or not money is made out of freax sales. it's rather a mater of consistency in the way of doing it

how can people on one hand flame scene newcomers willing to release something (a musicdisk) for the sake of doing it and being part of the demoscene (even if the code is crap, the interface fugly, and the musics ripped) and on the other hand stay quiet about freax ?
I recommend you shutting up, we have Stefan here for stupid flames.
added on the 2007-01-11 15:19:58 by tomcat tomcat
guess it's on Tomcat to reply on that issue...
added on the 2007-01-11 15:21:14 by d0DgE d0DgE
uh, he already did...that was fast indeed :)
added on the 2007-01-11 15:21:40 by d0DgE d0DgE
it was not intended to be a flame
i just mentioned facts and expressed my curiosity
jo tomcat would be nice if you could bring me one of those books to bp.
should be free for me. right?
added on the 2007-01-11 15:26:22 by xeNusion xeNusion
Rip the rip of the rip of the rippers?!

Those ripping critics confuse me lately. It's like trying to define what software patents or something. Can't explain teh feeling..

I have ripped because I've coppied concept of plasma effects, fires, threedee, tunnelz and stuff. I have used mod files from authors with permission that use ripped samples from other mods. I have used libs. 3d Equations or little code snipsets that I didn't understood at the time what they were doing but deadline was near. I have memed some famous demo transitions. I have used the dosfont. I plan to use some commercial MP3 for a future demo(f34r) just because I like that MP3. Sometimes I take textures from Doom and port them to CPC for my latest demo. I miss writting the proper credits ;P

Am I ripper or not?

RIP business confuse my brain :(
added on the 2007-01-11 15:34:10 by Optimus Optimus
Maybe I am just sort of halfway out of subject :/
added on the 2007-01-11 15:35:13 by Optimus Optimus
yeah well maybe i should have chosen another title ... i was more concerned about people's reaction than about freax itself
Thus thou shalt be decapitated by ye morrow! ;P
added on the 2007-01-11 15:37:11 by d0DgE d0DgE
I was really surprised the first time I even got my hands on the book. Looking at the amount of artists involved (= free books for them), I was really cynical about how the project could even reap a positive bottomline.

It sucks that Tomcat didn't ask permissions. I think there's some phrase in the book about contacting authors, but I really doubt there was much of that even though it's not really that hard.

This results in:
Layout sucks, if you'd asked for high resolution versions, you would have gotten them. Along with those, you could have gotten proper ICC-profiles so that most of the pictures would've actually retained their original colours. Now they are nicely washed out and IMO don't really represent the work of an artist as good as possible. Which sucks since you didn't ask for their permission in the first place.

I somewhat understand the motive behind the book, for me that Amiga part is probably the most precious, but I just wish the whole thing would have been done in a more proper and mature fashion. Now it just feels like a giant clusterfuck to begin with.
added on the 2007-01-11 15:51:25 by Reko Reko
I got the book for free! (winning @ function'06:) but i wasnt included in it.. :(

tomcat, include me in FREAX #2 and ill buy a copy =)
added on the 2007-01-11 15:55:05 by alien^PDX alien^PDX
Sure, everything sucks, and Freax is bad, as it is. Next time you make a better one. And yeah, you'll dig up all the artists included, and wait for their answers, yes or no. Stupid.
added on the 2007-01-11 16:04:00 by tomcat tomcat
"And yeah, you'll dig up all the artists included, and wait for their answers, yes or no. Stupid."

Wasn't that supposed to be your job? :)
added on the 2007-01-11 16:12:41 by Reko Reko
This might be a naive question, but does a journalist really have to ask for permission for every single image that is not done by him- or herself?? Ripping is posting something made by somebody else and calling it your own production, isn't it? Don't know about the legal situation of making books here, but when it comes to news-reports, e.g. about the scene, it would be impossible to make a publication over a non-commercial topic.
The disclaimer that everyone gets a free copy seems economically rather stupid, though, and locks him in a legal cage.
added on the 2007-01-11 16:27:28 by novel novel
i would be more concerned about all the boris vallejo covers in the book :) that man has big lawyers ;)
added on the 2007-01-11 17:59:36 by elkmoose elkmoose
Ah, the good old "make a better one yourself" defense...
added on the 2007-01-11 18:32:15 by teel teel
Isn't scene graphics usually PD?
I don't think there's any copyrighted pixel graphics out there, or am I wrong?
Displaying the name of the artists AND giving them a free book, seems very fair to me.
If you release stuff for parties and the scene in general, I'd consider it as license-free or at least released under the Creative Commons license agreement.
guardian: in a nutshell, he should have asked before printing, it was lame, but he is hungarian and doing some sort of a public service with it so it's somewhat acceptable even if still lame
added on the 2007-01-11 19:24:12 by psenough psenough
nutman: why on earth would scene graphics be public domain? unwritten rule of the scene?
added on the 2007-01-11 19:25:08 by psenough psenough
but he is hungarian

excuse...me? :)
added on the 2007-01-11 19:29:55 by Gargaj Gargaj
guardian: not to mention the fact that it's actually attempting to perserve scene history of some sorts, which in itself doesnt give him legal rights to use pictures made by other persons without their consent but does give a valid motive for having to use those specific ones.

the whole author rights thing is abit of a huge mess and people trying to make money out of it are making it even worse.. im no expert but the more i learn about it the more i realize it's a huge motherfucking mess with lots of gray areas between legal and moral use.
added on the 2007-01-11 19:30:28 by psenough psenough
gargaj: thats called humour, i believe you might be familiar with it..
added on the 2007-01-11 19:30:57 by psenough psenough
*looks at avatar* ... aaaaah! ok. :)
added on the 2007-01-11 19:33:24 by Gargaj Gargaj
ps> so those musicdisks i mentioned do not try to preserve scene history by bringing old amiga / atari modules to the holy windows ? :D

also i never said tomcat had bad intentions, and mentioned that i did not care whether or not money was made out of it