Hello guys,
Browsing through the wiki entries/changes I noticed some reverse editing by Nich; he removed part of the articles' content giving as reason the fact that he has not given permission for the text to be used here.
And I'm with him - he's 100% correct[nb]heck, CPCGR doesn't even link back to the wiki![/nb][nb]just kidding there :)[/nb] . CPCGR is not Wikipedia with an open license, hence we cannot use the content of his site here. So let's be a bit more careful, both with this and other copying habits...
I know there were no bad intentions, and our community is quite open, but it's easy enough to ask a copyright holder for their permission before copying.
Thanks - and my apologies to Nich...
You really like your footnotes [nb]You can over do it though :D[/nb], don't you Gryzor!
Bryce.
But they're nice![nb]really![/nb]
But back on topic now :)
Back on topic: Copyright isn't really an issue for me, because 99.9% of what I post is my own work.
Bryce.
Nobody pointed fingers :D
That said, I don't think it's an issue of "copyright" - heck, we're a closed enough group here -, just a matter of doing the right thing...
Copying slabs of information from another website from another website content for content is sadly asking for trouble, even if we all part of the same community and looking to share thoughts. In perspective only a fraction of a review can be used, or some kind of perspective from the site can be used when determining what's a good game or what's a dodgy game!
What concerns me with regard to my site is interpreting somebodies code into another language. Would be nice to know how much protection a program from a book which has been published or magazine from being interpreted into another language. My only defense in relation to that is source code was available and it isn't like I've taken a program, disassembled it or reverse engineered it or something. So far I haven't heard anything from anyone and just hope it's not breaking the law! ??? Some searching might find something.
Copyright is copyright.
However, with the old stuff CPC stuff (games, magazines etc) they probably don't care or if they did, would probably just send you a notice asking for removal.
The new stuff (for example, Nich's website) is definitely a no-no and permission needs to be sought for reproduction. If you can't get permission, then just link directly to it ('tis how the internet works!).
It surprises me that people start to care about rights of others now (and not before). The CPCWiki contains a lot of pages, that have been made out of my intellectual property. And usually I was not asked it this it ok or not. People just took my files and put it in the Wiki. However I'm part of a generation who knows what the ideal of the free flow of information means. So I'm perfectly fine with that. But it's important to check if people introduce errors by accident or lesser knowledge, else the content get's corrupted. Also this has been happened - and then sometimes it's hard to convince some people about the truth. Furthermore, whatever can be found in the net will be copied to various targets and will remain as a part of digital legacy. If it is in the net you will never be able to get it out. (At least not before the Radio-Resistance-Shock 2012).
You raise many points in one paragraph... I'll answer only to what refers to your work.
It is true that programs released for the CPC are considered by all of us as 'fair game'. What drives us all to it is NOT a disrespect of intellectual property but a need to save what is out there and tomorrow may be very hard to find. Mirroring a program that is given away for free does not take anything away from you or any programmer. However, copying actual *text* from another site which is, after all, a "competitor" so to speak is another issue.
That said, of course if you (or any other programmer) has an issue with their programs having a restricted distribution (which is silly IMO but, after all, one's very own right), I'll see to it immediately that it gets removed.
Opinions and reviews etc etc are totally different and have nothing to do with intellectual property or copyright, though.
There is no restrictions on the programs from my site. There are some programs which are obviously based on other programs though, in those situations I've acknowledged it even if it's different from the original program, it seems to be the safest thing to do.
Unfortunately other websites like GB64.COM go to the extremes with statements like this:
"The links listed here point to games that are assumed to have no commercial value, but you should only download and keep this game if you own the original. If a specific game's copyright holder wishes us to remove the following hyperlinks to their game, then please email remove*gb64.com (replace * with @)."
And they don't know even host the programs, this is the kind of stuff you read when dealing with BASIC programs from Published books some 27 years ago! WorldofSpectrum haven't dealt with it as seriously, though do acknowledge the source of the program and it's creator, which seems to be the more reasonable, though my only concern comes because it's from a book which is considered rare these days and valuable and while the original publisher ("Usborne") may not necessarily be around, someone may have the rights to it.
Though as I mentioned earlier there maybe some argument somewhere which allows me to post on the Internet a program which is derived from another program in another language, especially if the program has been modified from the original program. I guess if the world was mad we wouldn't be seeing all these Pacman or Tetris clones out there, and it's not like the free versions were appearing after the original Commercial games were out of circulation.
Quote from: Gryzor on 18:57, 01 December 10
Opinions and reviews etc etc are totally different and have nothing to do with intellectual property or copyright, though.
Well, if I write a review, then it is definitely my intellectual property. In case you disagree, just ask the editor of any scientific magazine.
A review is made by you, so it's your creation.
If you copy the handbook - that would be different.
I wasn't talking about copying a review - I was replying to your mention of people writing 'fales ideas' etc.
Quote from: TFM/FS on 19:23, 02 December 10
Well, if I write a review, then it is definitely my intellectual property. In case you disagree, just ask the editor of any scientific magazine.
A review is made by you, so it's your creation.
If you copy the handbook - that would be different.
Quote from: Gryzor on 10:27, 01 December 10
And I'm with him - he's 100% correct[nb]heck, CPCGR doesn't even link back to the wiki![/nb][nb]just kidding there :)[/nb]
I never noticed that until now! :-[ Well, it links back to CPCWiki now. Thanks for pointing this out!
No problem mate - no hard feelings :D
But... how come I see referrals from your site to ours even before that? There's a small surge of incoming visits beginning Nov the 20th, and over 70 visits over the last 30 days...??
Googling "site:cpcgamereviews.com cpcwiki" reveals nothing... So what gives???
[Edit] Ad darn - there you have it, a link in the front page...!
Interesting to note "Jack Nicklaus Golf" hasn't been reviewed! ;D AA reckons it's one of the best Golf Games done on the CPC! :) (AA53 - 89%) Of course I haven't played it, only noticed this because World Class Leaderboard had been done.
Quote from: CP/M User on 12:29, 26 December 10
Interesting to note "Jack Nicklaus Golf" hasn't been reviewed! ;D AA reckons it's one of the best Golf Games done on the CPC! :) (AA53 - 89%) Of course I haven't played it, only noticed this because World Class Leaderboard had been done.
Golf doesn't interest me at all - hence there are very few reviews of golf simulations on CPC Game Reviews. Of course, if you want to contribute your own, you're more than welcome to do so!
Funny I don't remember having play any Golf game on CPC...
I should give them a try... 8)
Nich wrote:
Golf doesn't interest me at all - hence there are very few reviews of golf simulations on CPC Game Reviews. Of course, if you want to contribute your own, you're more than welcome to do so!
Sounds reasonible, I just wondered cause some of your fellow reviewers I noticed had World Class Leaderboard done. Don't really know JNG well enough to review it sadly, I just noticed it wasn't there! :( I know I did one game for you which is still on your site, though I thought I did "Spannerman" as well, now I'm not sure! :-[
Funny Story - I was going through a hole heap of AAs and discovered they reviewed Hunt for the Red October as a full-price game twice! Initally in AA33 by Bob Wade I think and Trenton Webb reviewed it I think in AA58. Naturally the only difference being the price of the game - originally fetching £15 on Tape and £20 on Disc, was marked down to £10 on tape and £15 for Disc! Funny part about it is it got 44% initally and Trenton giving it 61% Trenton was bruital with the Grab Factor of it giving it 5% Bob gave it 37% ;D