Copyright, ownership, and licence restrictions

[PhilHibbs]

If I download a mod, can I decompile it, and modify it for personal use? Does the mod creator have the legal right to forbid it?

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"In the case UsedSoft v Oracle, the European Court of Justice ruled that the sale of a software product, either through a physical support or download, constituted a transfer of ownership in EU law, thus the first sale doctrine applies; the ruling thereby breaks the "licensed, not sold" legal theory, but leaves open numerous questions."

So as I am in the UK, I think it is legal for me. USians might be in a different situation. Opinions? Other references to relevant legal decisions?

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

We are not attorneys specializing in copyright law to be able to give you a viable answer. Thus I don't think you will ever get a solid and direct answer, but largely opinions on the topic.

The problem here is in the 'licensed, not sold' legal theory, which is where a lot of the headache comes about. Furthermore, the EU's ruling came about in reference to the secondary market of accounts, re-selling your games. It did not broach this topic, although a good attorney could probably make a bridge of logic, it is by no means on secure ground.

As a counterpoint, in the very same wikipedia article, you have this example, which directly contradicts your position:

In Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. the 9th Circuit created a three-factor test to decide whether a particular software licensing agreement is successful in creating a licensing relationship with the end user. The factors include: 1) whether copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license; 2) whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user's ability to transfer the software to others; and 3) whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions on the software. In Vernor, Autodesk's license agreement specified that it retains title to the software and the user is only granted a non-exclusive license. The agreement also had restrictions against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, or removing any proprietary marks from the software packaging or documentation. The agreement also specified that software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk's written consent, and could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. Based on these facts, the 9th Circuit held that the user is only a licensee of Autodesk's software, not an owner and hence the user could not resell the software on eBay without Autodesk's permission.

There's a very large difference, however, between right to distribute and right to decompile and edit software. Now you are talking 'Open Source' vs 'Closed Source', where the code is seen as intellectual property of the creator, and that attempts to violate that IP by decompiling, copying, or even editing the code constitutes a violation of those laws.

Wikipedia is a user-edited document, and should never be used as the sole citation to support a valid point. Anyone, literally anyone, can go in and edit the document freely, raising into the question the viability of the data as factual or not.

Having said that Wikipedia is also a good way to hunt down sources, because they often times cite other documents which are a bit more reliable.

 

[PhilHibbs]

As a counterpoint, in the very same wikipedia article, you have this example, which directly contradicts your position:

True, but it does say that you have to carefully word he licence in various ways, and also it's US so the two quotes don't contradict each other. So, yes, if that's right then it means that there are things a dev might do. In practice they generally have not.

There's a very large difference, however, between right to distribute and right to decompile and edit software. Now you are talking 'Open Source' vs 'Closed Source', where the code is seen as intellectual property of the creator, and that attempts to violate that IP by decompiling, copying, or even editing the code constitutes a violation of those laws.

I disagree that whatever I do on my computer has anything to do with anyone else's intellectual property. IP is not about keeping secrets, preventing other people from knowing what you know. And me decompiling software is purely me gaining knowledge, nothing more.

Oh, and I'm not after legal advice, just opinion and informed debate. I have no active intention of actually doing this myself.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

True, but it does say that you have to carefully word he licence in various ways, and also it's US so the two quotes don't contradict each other. So, yes, if that's right then it means that there are things a dev might do. In practice they generally have not.

The legality is, to my mind, irrelevant. It's just plain rude to decompile and yank someone else's code unless they give permission to do so.

I disagree that whatever I do on my computer has anything to do with anyone else's intellectual property. IP is not about keeping secrets, preventing other people from knowing what you know. And me decompiling software is purely me gaining knowledge, nothing more.

The problem here isn't decompiling, or even looking at how code is done. The problem is then either redistributing their mod with your modified code or copying large swaths of their code to make your own mod, and distributing it. In either case, it's distributing someone else's code, which is not cool.

Oh, and I'm not after legal advice, just opinion and informed debate. I have no active intention of actually doing this myself.

I think that most people who have an opinion on this topic has already made their opinion crystal clear at this point.

 

[PhilHibbs]

The problem here isn't decompiling, or even looking at how code is done.

Well that's specifically what I'm talking about.

The problem is then either redistributing their mod with your modified code or copying large swaths of their code to make your own mod, and distributing it. In either case, it's distributing someone else's code, which is not cool.

And that is specifically what I'm not talking about, and I agree entirely.

I think that most people who have an opinion on this topic has already made their opinion crystal clear at this point.

Probably right, but those opinions are scattered around in various derailed threads, so I felt it was worth collecting those opinions in one place.

I just feel that the attitude of "We decompiled Mojang's code to make these mods, but you can't do the same to our code" is both ethically and legally suspect. But ok, I accept that some people will always disagree with me.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Well that's specifically what I'm talking about.

And that is specifically what I'm not talking about, and I agree entirely.

Then I don't see what your problem is?

I just feel that the attitude of "We decompiled Mojang's code to make these mods, but you can't do the same to our code" is both ethically and legally suspect. But ok, I accept that some people will always disagree with me.

That's not what they are doing. Try looking up the definition of 'closed source' again.. Most of the 'DRM' (it isn't really, but since so many call it that, I'll use that term for now) found in mods like Forestry and Railcraft are to prevent people from copypasting large sections of code from those mods, add their own, and call it a new mod. Or redistributing 'fixed' mods with modified code.

 

[PhilHibbs]

That's not what they are doing... Most of the 'DRM' (it isn't really, but since so many call it that, I'll use that term for now) found in mods like Forestry and Railcraft are to prevent people from copypasting large sections of code from those mods, add their own, and call it a new mod.

I had no idea about that. I knew about the "if path =~ /tekkt/ then bees.explode()" thing, but I didn't know that there were other measures to prevent code lifting.

I guess... I don't know. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not. If I was picking Forestry apart to figure out how it worked, I guess I'd be a bit annoyed that it was fighting back and preventing me. That's probably not what it's designed to do, just collateral damage.

Also I guess it's not great that the mods are wasting CPU cycles on this kind of thing but it's probably just at startup.

 

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I had no idea about that. I knew about the "if path =~ /tekkt/ then bees.explode()" thing, but I didn't know that there were other measures to prevent code lifting.

I guess... I don't know. I'm not sure if that's a bad thing or not. If I was picking Forestry apart to figure out how it worked, I guess I'd be a bit annoyed that it was fighting back and preventing me. That's probably not what it's designed to do, just collateral damage.

Also I guess it's not great that the mods are wasting CPU cycles on this kind of thing but it's probably just at startup.

Basically, what the code does is every section of the code checks to be sure it is in Forestry's program. If it isn't, then it throws an exception. If you know what it is, getting around it isn't too hard. However, it is designed to prevent copypasting, not someone taking the code apart and learning how it was done.

It won't actively fight you picking apart the code. It just doesn't want to run the code unless that code is in the Forestry .jar file.

I mean... come on, I'm sure you can understand why someone who has put hundreds of man-hours into a program doesn't want someone just lifting broad sections of code and using it for their own program without any sort of credit or nod or anything.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I mean... come on, I'm sure you can understand why someone who has put hundreds of man-hours into a program doesn't want someone just lifting broad sections of code and using it for their own program without any sort of credit or nod or anything.

I would have no problem whatsoever with someone doing that on the privacy of their own computer. But yes, I can see it in regard to distribution. That's why I said I wasn't sure, because it's a complicated issue. I don't like to jump to hasty conclusions on ethical matters.

 

[DrHexatron]

If for distribution, no. This happens every time with slow-going mods like RP. For personal use, I don't see why not. None of the mod authors seem like people who would sew you in court for taking apart a mod.