Slashdot Mirror
Register, Others Call Plagiarism in "Limbo of the Lost" Game
Fallen Andy writes "'The Register' has an article describing 'Limbo of the Lost' (developed by Majestic and sold in the U.S by Tri Synergy) which seems to have 'borrowed' copiously graphics assets from other games. Over at the GamesRadar forum there is a thread with some screenshots. Finally, this game has its own Wikipedia entry. Warning to all — move the soft drink away from the keyboard and monitor before you look at
those screenshots. Blatant this is, very blatant indeed."
The problem with your analogy is that they are making a profit on it (well, they won't now). The people who use the argument you are talking about for copying music/games/etc don't turn around and make mixed CDs, package them, and sell them as their own work (except puff daddy).
Heh, that's some of the hardest work I've seen gone into plagiarism. That is, outside of academia and Hollywood and politicians where everyone pretty much copies everyone else...
I dont believe that is a sample. Samples are when you take the actual audio of one song and take a bit of it and use it in your song. In the case of Ice, Ice Baby the riff was ripped off and re recorded.
This is important because the labels own the recordings of the songs but the artists own the songs themselves. You have to pay the artist if you re-record their song, you don't have to pay the artist if you sample a recording.
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
Shakespeare did not invent the plots of his plays. Sometimes he used old stories (Hamlet, Pericles).
So, in which older tellings of something like Hamlet can you point to prose such as Shakespeare's "To be, or not to be..." passage? It's one thing to write a game with a magic ring quest plot, and it's quite another to say you're doing something original, and it's just a coincidence that you have characters named Frodo and Gandalf.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Not that I approve. Some people can write code, design game concepts etc but be incapable of drawing pictures. When I look at the photo of the 3 main developers I don't see a picture that looks like three guys that would play typical cutting edge games. They come up with game logic that kinda works but is butt ugly. They hire someone who claims they are a shit hot CG artist, complete with examples of "their" work. This person then proceeds to rip other peoples' work.
The developers are of course stoked by the amazing art "developed" for their game, and give lots of bonuses. Then they discover that they've been sounded robbed, as their game (and their reputations) are soundly denounced.
I'm not saying this has happened in this case, but I've seen scenarios like this before (when I did work in the games industry).
I'm also not saying that this justifies it. If anything it reveals "technology blindness" where the developers are so in love with their own product that they don't bother looking at what else is on the market.
so all corporations are teh evil incarnate eh?
Am I an evil corporate scumbag because I own a limited liability company? Am I magically less evil if I make the same games as a sole proprietor? Or is all commerce evil and only working for free in a hippy commune an acceptable way to live?
These guys were scum who took other peoples hard work and tried to profit from it. They should be sued to death. If you tolerate this, then that means you would prefer all modern games to just be re-mixes of the 8 bit textures from games of twenty years ago. After all, why the hell put any effort into creating original stuff when you can just rip off people who can do better work than you.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Most important they don't try to make any money off of it.
The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
Ideas and stories are not copyrightable. It's the execution of the ideas and stories that are protected.
You can take the basic story of "King Lear" and create "Ran". You can take the basic story of "Seven Samurai" and create "The Magnificent Seven". Those pairs of movies share plots and stories but each executes its own vision.
In this case, the problem with the game is that they stole the execution - i.e. the art - used in other games, not the story.
"Even for Slashdot, that was a very obscure reference!" - Anonymous Coward
This should be modded "Insightful", not "Funny". Even if he did make some clever jokes, he's right. We'd all go play the game on a lark to see what we could find if it were free. The fact that the guy is charging for it when someone else did all the heavy graphic and design lifting is what's causing the furor here.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
Am I an evil corporate scumbag because I own a limited liability company? Am I magically less evil if I make the same games as a sole proprietor? Or is all commerce evil and only working for free in a hippy commune an acceptable way to live?
I don't actually agree with the OP, but he's not advocating communism. He's railing against corporations, because they absolve people of all personal responsibility and liability. So, yes, he probably thinks you're a scumbag of sorts because you own a LLC. If you truly believe that you're not doing anything wrong, then you should have a sole proprietorship, and accept all the liability that goes along with that. If you're not doing anything wrong, why aren't you willing to risk your own personal fortune and home?
Personally, I disagree with this view partly. He makes a good point, in that people involved in corporations are too shielded from liability, so that, for instance, people like Ken Lay get to walk free after doing criminal things and just letting their corporation take the fall by collapsing, leaving all the actual people in charge without any consequences, but with plenty of money. However, if I were to start a business of my own, I would certainly form an LLC as well, because while big corporations like Enron and their executives certainly get off too easy, in today's overly-litigious society, it is simply too risky to allow your personal assets be tied up with your business, because one lawsuit gone bad (because of some stupid jury) means your home and other assets can be seized. While I personally don't believe myself to be doing any wrong, I simply don't trust the court system to render correct verdicts, and worse, it's simply too easy to be driven out of business by excessive litigation even if you're completely innocent due to our lack of "loser pays" laws, so it makes perfect sense to protect your assets by shielding yourself behind an LLC.
Have a look at the Pirate Bay's site. Lots of ads there... almost as if the traffic were bring used to sell advertising space.
I have no idea what 'zeitgeist' or 'petard' mean, but I'm gonna attempt to address your post anyway.
I don't know if the intention of his post was really to call "those people" hypocrites. If I had to define his point, I'd say that he is simply trying to show "those people" that the arguments they often use are, at best, questionable justifications that, in another context, seem rather ridiculous.
For example, you seem to be saying (and forgive me if I misinterpret) that in one context, we have a company making money off of another companies work, and that's wrong. But it's not so wrong for an individual to use or acquire a companies copyrighted assets without compensation because that individual won't profit from it. Never mind that said company could be losing profits because of it. Never mind that it doesn't belong to that individual, regardless of how insignificant they feel their actions are. I mean, where's the line, and what gives this individual the right to draw it? But there's no use in arguing, as the OP pointed out, there are a dozen or so ways for the individual to justify it to himself, and in the process trick himself into thinking he's some kind of freedom crusader, saving the world from the evil corporations that *gasp* want to charge us for things, even when most of us secretly know he/she just wants free stuff.
In the end, as an observer, I guess I've always just found the pirate's reasoning to be a little self-serving. It's always been so easy to call corporations evil, controlling bastards intent on ripping the public off. It's a lot more difficult to ask yourself what your personal responsibility is, what your true motivations are, and what your self-serving justifications say about you. Maybe there is something hypocritical about a thief that steals from thieves.
But I can't think about that now, I have definitions to look up.