Skip to content
Another Bizzarre Qu...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Another Bizzarre Question

12 Posts
5 Users
0 Reactions
3,889 Views
(@racer-y)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 114
Topic starter  

Hi. Besides bothering the neighbors with my axe, I also am
involved with online racing sims as a hobby.

There was a game made by Sierra(papyrus) called "NASCAR 2003".
Anyways, Sierra sold the rights to that game ...I dunno
about a year ago to a company called FIRST.

Well, as most of you know a lot of games of various sorts are
constanly being modded with the .ini files altered and whatnot.
And most of these games makers encourage it. (it gives the game
a longer shelflife).

First has decided to go after Modders of the Nascar title, saying
that they violated the terms of the EULA (End Users License Agreement)
EULAs are on pretty much all software you purchase.

Yeah, in one swift move, these FIRST people pretty much ruined a
bunch of cool stuff out there.

How does this relate to Guitar forums? Hang on.

There are all sorts of effects and amps that have digitally processed
effects and EQs and whatnot. What if someone was to break one of
these effects or whatever open and then mess with the coding to
I dunno make a standard distortion pedal into a multi-effects unit
and publish this knowlege on the Net? Would the whatever
effects company try to stop it?

Yeah, I know. It's probably not the best example, but....

WIth more and more computer technology being used in the amps/effects,
it's a very real possibility to turn a low budget stomp box into a... a high
end multi-sampler thingee. And I mean within the next couple of years.

Has anyone thought about this? How does the prospect of
getting sued just because you've found a way to make your batteries
last longer on your Pick ups?

My steering Wheel (I race remember?) has obvious design flaws,
especially with the pedals. I voided the Warranty by correcting
this problem as have others and like the others, published my work on
this in the appropriate forums. Also, the fixes i performed extended the
life of my wheel considerably. I'm afraid they're going to yell at me too
soon.

But back to the subject. do you think the effects manufacturers,
especially the ones with lamer products, will stiffen their purchase
agreements on the consumer (YOU) to prevent any sort of innovation?

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but when
you're a 22lb sledge, do you really have to be?


   
Quote
(@demoetc)
Noble Member
Joined: 22 years ago
Posts: 2167
 

Were any of the NASCAR game modders making a profit off their mods online?


   
ReplyQuote
(@racer-y)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 114
Topic starter  

Good question, but no these people do this for the love of the game.
and in a nut shell what they did was alter certain Physics data files.
They did this to duplicate the physics effects of various types
of racing and they duplicated various circiuts throughout the world and
made realistically modeled cars like Ferraris... Formula 1... I think
someone even modded a drag strip. I don't know. TBH, I play
Live for Speed.

And I'm wondering if this will be applied to different things that are out
there.

I read a Guitar Player Magazine years ago. It had an interview with
Eddie Van Halen. He said he had some electronics
wizard modify his effects to get the precise sounds he wanted.
If you take what FIRST did with NASCAR 2003 rights and set
that as a legal precedent, Eddie Van Halen is now liable to be sued.

To be honest (and going off topic) it amazes me why FIRST would do that
especially with a game that's dated. Sure it has a good physics engine,
but not THAT good. and modding games is just something that's been
done since.....who knows? It keeps games alive longer.
In fact that's the main reason I bought nascar. I can't stand NASCAR, but
I bought the game in 04' cause it was cheap and I was anticipating some
decent mods with prototypes or Formula cars and circuits.

You know what? lol I blame this on Metallica. yeah, that's right,
Metallica. If they didn't whine about napster, it wouldn't got that
whole electronics legal issue snowball rolling.......And I saw them
twice in concert........ :twisted:

Yeah I know I know. but wouldn't it be funny if Lars got sued for
downloading an illegally modded copy of a flight simulator or something?

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but when
you're a 22lb sledge, do you really have to be?


   
ReplyQuote
(@anonymous)
Illustrious Member
Joined: 17 years ago
Posts: 8184
 

que?


   
ReplyQuote
 Mike
(@mike)
Famed Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 2892
 

It keeps games alive longer.

Now if that is the case, you wouldn't be running out to get every new version they make. :idea:

I deal with Cad programs and I can change the post processors to fit my needs at anytime I want. I can change and modify the Macro as well. It is actually encouraged. Then again I just paid anywhere's up to 6 grand for the program, I should be able to do what I want with. BUT, If I want to put the program on a second computer or machine, I have to buy a second site license.

I think in your situation, FIRST probably thinks they are going to lose money. They probably wouldn't even care, if they weren't going to lose money.

It's all about the money.


   
ReplyQuote
(@racer-y)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 114
Topic starter  

It keeps games alive longer.

Now if that is the case, you wouldn't be running out to get every new version they make. :idea:

I deal with Cad programs and I can change the post processors to fit my needs at anytime I want. I can change and modify the Macro as well. It is actually encouraged. Then again I just paid anywhere's up to 6 grand for the program, I should be able to do what I want with. BUT, If I want to put the program on a second computer or machine, I have to buy a second site license.

I think in your situation, FIRST probably thinks they are going to lose money. They probably wouldn't even care, if they weren't going to lose money.

It's all about the money.

That's nice... but I'm talking
about the out come of that decision being applied across the board, not just video games and software.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but when
you're a 22lb sledge, do you really have to be?


   
ReplyQuote
 Mike
(@mike)
Famed Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 2892
 

What's the difference?

Money is the end result anyway you look at it.

People/Companies/Industries don't complain unless there losing…….Money/Profit/Loss of retirement funds etc......

Again, it's all about “THE MONEY”!

If I buy something it SHOULD be mine, BUT, (present time) it ain't always the case!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, I do deal with the software side of it but, as you know, the end result is still the same.


   
ReplyQuote
(@demoetc)
Noble Member
Joined: 22 years ago
Posts: 2167
 

And in this case the problem (or presumed problem) is compounded by the fact that the game went from one company (who may have not cared because they made their money from it) to another company (who may not be so lenient due to startup costs or repackaging, etc. Like Northern Songs maybe, having made enough profit, selling to M. Jackson who is stricter in licensing out songs.

Maybe that FIRST wanted to reintroduce the game with some of their own mods (or as is), and want somehow to start 'fresh' which is impossible unless they change the (I'm not a programmer so forgive the misuse of terms) basic code. And doing that would be impractical; they might as well just redo the whole thing. If they're just buying the built-in market and the name of the game and are planning to redesign the game from ground up, then they're trying to snip off the leftover versions of the older design before they introduce theirs.

It still comes down to profit. It always does. That's just the bottom line for any company. And profit also includes name, visibility, demographic and all previous advertising, etc.

It's like what I've heard about Behringer vs Line 6 (and others). They pretty much dupe the designs and call them their own, but a lot of times, since they're European and don't fall under US Patents, they get away with it.

On the other hand, and I've mentioned this in another thread awhile back, if I buy something and I'm not being given the product (like amp or guitar or whatever) by the manufacturer in order to increase visibility and thereby sales, and I've spent my own money on it, my responsiblity ends to the company. I can take the nametag or badge or logo off and replace it with my own name if I wanted to, and technically, at least to me, they have nothing to say about it. That is of course, unless I start to try and sell their product with my name on it as being my own. Then they have every right to come after me. But if I bought the thing, I'm not going to keep paying them by affording them what amounts to free advertising, even if I'm not a headliner. I mean, that's the thing, even when you see an old, empty Coke can on the street somewhere, you recognize it as being a 'Coca Cola' product, and the advertising/marketing is still working.

And technically, I can refuse to be a part of that since they're not sponsoring me in any way.

There's already lots of modded pedals and stuff on the market, but it's aftermarket. Like the Something-something modded BOSS MetalZone, or the Somebody-Modded Carvin amps, but I think the key thing there is that they're 'aftermarket.' Like getting different rims for your car or a spoiler.

On the other hand, companies which allow mods are taking advantage of unsolicited and free R&D, which they may or may not include in their own next generation product.

But they still come out the winners because their R&D costs go down.

And it still comes down to money.

So it looks like FIRST is going for the clean-up sort of thing, whereas Sierra maybe used mods that were suggested, or didn't care, or liked the idea of having a 'customizable' product, hitting the market which likes to tweak things exactly the way they want.

FIRST is a different company with different goals and an image they want to portray, so it's entirely up to them. Bottom line, they'll get some sales from new people and lose sales from tweakers. I guess they figure they can afford that.


   
ReplyQuote
(@racer-y)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 114
Topic starter  

Hi. I'm really glad that this thread has gotten respnoses from
y'all. :)
But I don't think you're getting my point.
I don't care if FIRST wants people to mod their games or not.
What I'm concerned with is the Legal ruling and how it will affect all sorts
of other things, not just video games.
I'm concerned that other industries will use that ruling in some form or fashion on the stuff they make.
Like what Federal Authorties do with the RICCO statutes and
stuff like that.
That ruling means that now Fender, as a condition of purchase,
will be able to dictate that only certified, trained and approved
personell can change the strings on any of it's guitars.

Changing the motor oil in a car - same thing.
Heck, technicaly, even making a mixed drink can be messed with.

Whatever motivation FIRST has with that funky decision is of
no relevance. It's the Legal ruling in itself that scares me.
With that ruling, companies can impose those restrictions on whatever and for no other reason except, "just because".

I'm not as paranoid as I seem to be. I can see from a corporate
standpoint, that this ruling could be used to circumvent product liability
laws.
"hey it was in the agreement not to change the strings. We're not liable for the ensuing explosion of the whammy bar resulting in loss
of bowel functions from an untrained person attempting this highly
precise endeavor".

From FIRST's perspective I can actually see why they went that route.
What's to stop some one from being able to completely to mod out
whatever FIRST decides to do with the Game's engine?
(honestly, FIRST should focus on making another engine entirely)
They can get their butt handed to them if they tried to make any product
for sale using the current engine. that court case was needed for them.

But again, this particular ruling is now a legal precedent for any future cases...uh in the USofA.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but when
you're a 22lb sledge, do you really have to be?


   
ReplyQuote
(@paul-donnelly)
Noble Member
Joined: 21 years ago
Posts: 1066
 

I wouldn't exactly call this a landmark ruling. This is just another symptom of the growing power companies have over products they have sold to us. It's very upsetting that they would choose to attack modders, and it's also upsetting that they can. In a move to increase profits, a company can stifle innovation, which may be good for them, but not for everyone else. Intellectual Property law is in need of a thorough review.


   
ReplyQuote
(@demoetc)
Noble Member
Joined: 22 years ago
Posts: 2167
 

That's it man, I'm sanding the Fender logo off my Strat and removing the serial numbers from everything, lol.

Same with the Les Paul.

So I found this at http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Racketeer-Influenced-and-Corrupt-Organizations-Act :

Under RICO, a person or group who commits any two of 35 crimes--27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes--within a 10-year period and (in the opinion of the U. S. Attorney bringing the case) has committed those crimes with similar purpose or results can be charged with racketeering. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and/or sentenced to 20 years in prison. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." The act also contains a civil component that allows plaintiffs to sue for triple damages.

When the U. S. Attorney decides to indict someone under RICO, he has the option of seeking a pre-trial restraining order or injunction to prevent the transfer of potentially forfeitable property, as well as require the defendant to put up a performance bond. Some have said this provision is intended to force a defendant to plead guilty before indictment.

Where RICO laws might be applied

Some of the RICO predicate acts are extortion and blackmail however one of the most successful applications of the RICO laws has been the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies.

The RICO laws can possibly be alleged in cases where civil lawsuits or criminal charges are brought against individuals or corporations in retaliation for said individuals or corporations working with law enforcement, or against individuals or corporations who have sued or filed criminal charges against a defendant.

Anti-SLAPP laws can possibly be applied in an attempt to curb alleged abuses of the legal system by individuals who utilize the courts as a weapon to retaliate against whistle blowers, victims, or to silence another's speech however RICO could conceivably be alleged if it can be shown that lawyers and/or their clients conspired and collaborated to concoct fictitious legal complaints solely in retribution and retaliation for themselves having been brought before the courts.

Is this the thing you're talking about?


   
ReplyQuote
(@racer-y)
Estimable Member
Joined: 20 years ago
Posts: 114
Topic starter  

Hi. Sorry for the delay...windows problems :(
Anyways, Yeah. Rico was made to combat organized crime. They have since used other elements of that to go after white collar crime.
I'm not complaining about that, just using that as an example....
probably a bad example, but it was all I could think of at the moment.

The case involving FIRST wasn't a Supreme Court case, so even though it is a precedent, it could be overturned, but I think it will be used
as a reference in future cases.

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but when
you're a 22lb sledge, do you really have to be?


   
ReplyQuote