Official response from Leon about ToEE tools

Firestrand,

Actually I doubt there is a statute of limitations on copyright law, although it ultimately depends upon where the material is copyrighted (in Canada for example most criminal violations don't have limitations). I know as a matter of fact that books, plays, and other writing of the like become public domain fifty years after the death of the author (most authors will give rights to non-profit usage if asked). I'm fairly certain that the author's estate can extend this period beyond fifty years.

Copyright law, to put it simply, is an attempt to mediate between public and private domain. What seems to be the fundamental way of determining priority in the US is fair use. To put it simply so long as you are improving, while not explicitly stealing or utterly violating, artistic material or distributing your alterations for some form of public benefit and without the intent to profit by it you seem to be protected by fair use.

Wikipedia, of course (they do operate solely on the basis of fair use;yay GFDL), has a great explination of fair use as defined in US copy right law, its very educational.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

The disclaimer states that you can't "modify... or otherwise reduce the software to human readable form". This seems to me to mean source code, if I have all my definitions right (I'm sure you guys know what it means anyway), since if it just meant evertything that you've installed from these disks (i.e. the ToEE program) then playing the game could be construed as a violation. Ultimately, what your editing and modding is not source code (right?) but rather some sort of object code or machine code that the source code has been translated into (right?).

Not to mention modding is made pretty clear in the editor and end user section of the document: i) mods have to work with the registered software ii) you can't mod executables iii and iv) don't involve third parties that may get annoyed because you insulted them or violated their copyrights v) don't make money. Of course your only supposed to edit using a feature of the software (?), you're the editor types... I honestly don't know how clear or intentionally not clear that statement is.

Lastly, just because they don't come after you doesn't mean a thing. You have to go to them, and if they do come after you then you'll have x period of time to terminate whatever action they consider a violation. So if anyone is thinking about using 1) editing software that is external to the publications normal function they should check with Infogrames (who according to the EULA is the company from which you accept the condtions of the EULA although Atari owns the rights to the game[I know they are the same overall]), 2) if you want to edit source code you have to talk to Infogrames. At the very least this way you will be able to say "We asked for clarification they did not offer it, now that they are interpreting action x as a violation of the EULA we withdraw and promise to terminate action x". What it comes down to is they will likely not pursue action against anyone modding the game because it will be difficult for them to prove that you've damaged their reputation, you have diminished rather than improved upon the existing artisitic merit of the game without overwriting it altogether, or that you've otherwise violated fair use. Not to mention it cost them like hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire some lawyer to write a letter, to which they'll get a response of sorry we'll stop, and not recoup the expense from some lucerative law suit.

Again I'm not a legal professional. I just love mods, and think you shouldn't have to worry about getting sued. So I'm just offering info from the personal knowledge (limited exposure from undergrad, and easy access sources) in the hopes that you won't worry about legality, take measures to not get sued, and thus make me more mods... and for other people, I guess.

 

Morpheus

I'm not sure. But they are mentioned only as the developer of ToEE in the EULA and seperated from the list of copyrights held and trademarks held in reference to ToEE. The may have signed a contract with Atari when they agreed to develope ToEE that prevents them from releasing the editing tools or perhaps anything to the public without express permission form Atari, WoTC, Hasbro, and/or Infogrames. I'd imagine thats the case.

If it is then, no offense Toika, but bad plan... you should have gotten better lawyers or looked up some horror stories of intellectual copyright stuff in areas outside of programming. What happens with some big companies, and I'm not saying Atari or anyone else did this, is they'll create a contract with a client with some sort of exclusive product exchange (like above) so that they don't have to develope something fully they don't think will turn a huge profit and so that their competitors don't get their hands on it. This is common practice with artisitic agents of all sorts, film production companies, academic journals, book publishers and anyone with a hand in making money on intellectual copyrights. And its down right genius. There's literally dozens of websites dedicated to telling such tales as regards talent agents/publishers. Its legal, and its good business. Ironically its also good for artist, sometimes its your only chance at a break and if you prove them wrong and build a supermarketable product your set.

I have a couple profs in such a situation with some of their material (they can't say sure have it because journal x or book x says only we publish this). And a friend of mine had this happen with a movie, company z bought it gave him some cash and never sent it off to film festivals, they just wanted the script so no one else would get it.

More nonlegal professional speculation.

I'll stop for a couple of days so you don't have to read what may be considered spam. And I have to study.

 

I guess I am getting a TOTALLY different mood from Leon's post. Troiks HAS the tools but they don't want to distribute them illegally? I think it is probably a lot more mundane such as Troika would recieve no more money if the toolset is released. Atari might as even one additional sale of the game goes to Atari's coffers and it sounds like with the "we are watching our buisiness crash and burn" that Troika wouldn't release the tools even if they could out of sheer spite. Remember, those two companies really had a falling out over ToEE and the development beagn to infringe on Troika's other project V2:Bloodlines. The way I see it is Leon and Co. HAVE the tools. Atari may not as they didn't develop the game. Troika, while not owning the D&D lisence, did own the engine and the world ed/tools and probably still do. I don't mean to delve into a "who's fault is it" because it doesn't matter but from what I read up top, Troika couldn't care less about releasing the toolset unfornutaely for those of us who like this game.

 

About WotC and their unwillingness to help, that mostly comes from their masters in Hasbro who happen to be some of the most tight-fisted SOBs in existence. However, I'm sure they are totally unaware that there is a modding community, so approach them with care. Hasbro has been known to get a wild burr up its butt.

The community really needs someone well versed in copyright law (ie - a lawyer) who will either work free or on the cheap for the community.

 

Right Field

mynamewastolen-
I was not suggesting that the copyrighted material would be void. My point is that Atari can no longer enforce the points of the EULA, because they have allowed it to be violated, and have taken no action. The copyright on the art, code, etc. still holds, but the parts about modding, and adding content don't. There are cases here in the US where a company has allowed their EULA to be violated, and then decided to try an enforce it. Didn't stand up in court, because they knowingly allowed the violation for over a year. Of course if Atari decided to be a pain, I am sure they could drown any of us in legal cash, and they would win by that virtue. But they would also piss off a large user base, which is definitely not worth it. I think as long as everything stays non-profit, they will have no reason to do anything. Including release the WorldEd tools.

Large media companies need to realize that litigation is not a smart business practice. I no longer buy CDs because of the RIAA, and I know several friends who feel the same. I am close to never buying a DVD again for the same reason. If enough people act similarly, they would have to stop. But I digress, this has nothing to do with ToEE..... Yet.....

-Firestrand

 

Bah! Write to Atari, ask them for a statement on whether they would allow, in principle, for modding tools to be released (as they hold the rights which are pertinent to what the modders are asking for).

If they say yes, approach Troika with the statement and see what they specifically need by the way of legal wording to release the tools. Use statement of principle to get Atari to write the legal tool, or even have one drawn up (I could get it done for free if it's UK law, but I think it will be under French or US law) for them to sign.

If they say no, then just start writing letters. Kick up a fuss in all the gaming forums. Politely, firmly, keep asking. Make a fuss in gaming magazines. Send letters to WoTC. Atari allows many of its games to be modded significantly (Moo3 for instance) so it's not as if it's against company policy.

There's no need to talk of user violations unless someone re-engineers the code and tries to pass it off as their own work. Or a modder tries to charge for a mod, or does something extremely nasty in his/her mod and it gets Atari bad press.

Keep it simple folks - Agetian has taken us to step one. It's step two now. Find out what Atari's position is (don't mention contact with Troika atm) and find out in general principles whether they'd release a mod.

 

Gaear is 100% right, Atari is short sighted, narrow minded and only focused on the current and future dollar. Anything like this that gets on their radar will immediate go thru their legal, who will simply say "Shut it down", unless they can pay for it. Asking them for anything for "free" is a pipedream.

 

Firestrand

I didn't mean to say your wrong. I just doubt it is that clear cut. The core principle seems to be fair play. And allowing people to violate a copywrite for over a year and then try to sue them is clearly a violation of fair play. But just because it happened in x case does not absolutely mean a precident has been established, or indicate the status of copyright law in general. A judge may not see it such activity as in contradiction to fairplay. Moreover, I don't think modding constitutes a violation since a violation involves only modding of software, which from what I gather is in this case source code and executables not objects because it would be ridiculous and impossible to use the game if it were just everything (you tell me because my computer knowledge lacks).

The copyright is held in New York under New York law. Anything that has to do with the game must be dealt with through Atari/Infogrames, anything dealing with game content, i.e. setting, must go through Hasbro.

I doubt you need a lawyer, at this point. Just send atari a letter and/or an email and ask. The link is in an above post, and pretty easy to find on their cite. If they don't respond then you'd need a lawyer to draft the letter if you want 1) toolset, 2) source code, 3) or anything else you can't get for your self. Most likely they'll just say no to a letter (whether a lawyer rights it or not), and you will have to kick up a fuss. At best a letter will just get you a better address to inquire at.

Again still not a lawyer.

 

Brothel a problem?

If someone from Atari/Hasbro checked and saw that the brothel was in the game, could that cause a major problem?

 

Nope, as the end user has to take action to get the brothel to work. Therefore you couldn't sue them for objectionable content because you made a choice to install it.

I think the entire reason they pulled it from release was to be absolutely sure no one got upset and tried to sue. While I disagree with their decision, I also know some legal departments and how paranoid they are, so it is understandable.

-Firestrand

Again, also still not a lawyer...

 

Well, additions to a game are NOT illegal. If you own a personal license to use something, you can also alter it for PERSONAL USE ONLY, and also rip it apart. The issue is the PERSONAL USE. If you decide distributing such content, you face a legal issue - if the acquirer of the content also has the personal license to the product he could have also effected the same series of events that have led to the creation of the new content, without having broken his license agreement. Therefore, it remains an issue of personal skills to do so. However, the license does not state that your usage of the product is limited to personal skills?! Moreover, it is possible for a series of users to effect dientical changes in the product for their personal use or different sets of changes, and through free discussion explain to anyone what they have done. Thus, said third person would have been in a position without breaking copyright to exactly duplicate said content. Using the same logic as per Confidentiality Agreements, something is prohibited from distribution only if a third party would have had no other source / way of obtaining it aside from the party that has signed the CA (if from public sources one might have been capable to glean the final result, no breech of CA is present), I'd say that developing an editing tool and using it jointly with the game engine and distributing it to game holders should not represent a violation of the EULA.

 

Martinius: personal use is limited by the guidlines in the EULA, which conditionally prohibits the employment of an editor not provided with the program by way of the disclaimer section and the personal use section. In fact you do not own the software of ToEE they are "liscensed" to you by way of lease.

The EULA states pretty clearly what you can do with an editor, if an editor is provided with the software. One isn't provided therefore editing the software is subject to the disclaimer section of the EULA (And so editing is a violation of the EULA). If firestrand is correct, then atari has allowed this section of the EULA to become void, and therefore creating an editor and making use of it is legal.

Really the whole debate is moot, since its unlikely that Atari will do anything about editing/modding unless you try to make profit.