Slashdot Mirror
NAMCO Takes Down Student Pac-man Project
An anonymous reader writes "The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn. Apparently a bunch of students using MIT's educational Scratch programming language understand this. But not everyone else does. NAMCO Bandai sent a takedown notice to MIT because some kids had recreated Pac-man with Scratch. The NAMCO letter is pretty condescending as well, noting that it understands the educational purpose of Scratch, but 'part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others.'"
Oh no, anyone can play Pac-Man for free!
Say, have NAMCOman eat the developing brains of college students while being chased by the ghosts of creativity. Then NAMCOman can eat a copy of the DMCA and kill off the creative spirits one by one.
who prays for Satan? Who in 18 centuries has had the humanity to pray for the 1 sinner that needed it most? ~Mark Twain
because some kids had recreated Pac-man from Scratch
Perhaps if this was the sentence the NAMCO lawyer had read, oh wait, things would have gone down the same.
part of their education should include concern for the intellectual property of others.'"
And part of our collective foots should be up NAMCO's ass.
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
why aren't they being taught to respect the rights of others (fair use, etc)? why aren't they being taught that they can't have an indefinite free lunch in a free market? why aren't they being taught that broken business models propped up by government do everyone a disservice?
A vital part of human culture is that every generation of people can build upon the innovations of the previous. This is how we got from living in caves to reaching for the stars. Greedy corporations are systematically destroying this mechanism for their own personal gain. This must be stopped or our civilization will have no future. Lawrence Lessig dat a much better job at explaining this than I do: http://remix.lessig.org/
Sounds like a good idea; they should learn to find intellectual property deeply concerning. These students already have, the hard way.
It is sad that one of the oldest gaming companies in the world has become so shortsighted as to punish a group of students using as inspiration one of the best games ever made, by a bunch of students that want to honor "Pac-Man" by recreating it on Scratch. Not to sell it but to learn. Shame on you Namco (and your lawyers), too bad non of your games now are worth even pirating otherwise i would wish that to you.
Nom de dieu de putain de bordel de merde de saloperie de connard d encule de ta mere.
This page is a detailed history of Pac Man, including history and information on the different ghosts move algorithms and speed changes... I find it interesting... Read it while you can, its hosted on comcast.....
http://home.comcast.net/~jpittman2/pacman/pacmandossier.html
One down, about 1620 more to go.
There really is a good lesson about intellectual property to learn here. No, it's not exactly the lesson Namco wants these students to learn, but in this overly litigious society, it's important for everyone getting an education in computer programming to learn about patents, copyrights, and trademarks, both in terms of how they work and in terms of what their limits are. After all, you can create a Pac-Man-like game without treading on Namco's turf, and programmers should take some time to learn just how to do this sort of thing.
The reason answers exist in the back of math textbooks is not for cheating. They are there so you can check your methods and determine if you are going about things the right way.
One of my first programming experiences was making a tic-tac-toe game on the TI-83 my high school gave me. I knew the game already, I knew how it was supposed to look and work, and therefore allowed to me to concentrate on the method only. I had the answer, I just needed to figure out how to get there.
Scratch is a learning tool, aimed at elementary students, perhaps going into high school bit. Maybe the students (assuming they're students) shouldn't have posted the project online, but I encourage them to rip off every game they need to until they're comfortable enough to make their own.
Except of course that the true purpose of all the "intellectual property", as the mega-corps and their paid-for politicos envision it, is to prevent exactly that and to ensure that no innovation is possible without it "belonging" to one of the "gate keepers" of all future progress who are busily jockeying for the position in this aristocracy.
And it is already nearly so since every thing ever invented or created always builds on the cumulative knowledge of all the discoveries and developments of the past and the recent past is nearly completely patented, copyrighted and locked down. Locked down forever - for all practical purposes from the point of view of a person living less then 100 years.
Well, I've taken a look at the site.
What it APPEARS has happened here is that NAMCO have _assumed_, based on the appearance of the site, that what's running on the site is actually a Java emulator running the Pac-Man ROM. I say that because a) the loading sequence that Scratch projects show when invoked via the web looks just like the startup for such a Java emulator, and b) there are still lots of pac-man games on the Scratch site that haven't been affected.
Alternatively, it could be the case that an evil-minded student rival reported the page to NAMCO. See, letting people infringe on your copyright just by turning a blind eye is ok; but if there's an actual paper trail proving that you _knew_ about the copyright infringement, you HAVE to take some legal action to enforce it - otherwise, your copyright can be overturned.
There is definitely something deeper here than what has been reported, and it may be worth reserving judgment until we know what it is.
AFAIK, what you're describing happens only with trademarks, not copyrights, so I think you may be confusing the two. At most, people that the copyright holder does not take rightful action against might be construed as having been given implicit permission to copy the work, but that should not remotely affect future cases against other people.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The core of how people first learn to do stuff — programming, music, writing, etc. — is to imitate others. It's one of the best ways to learn
Correct, and I did my share of imitating other's games when I was learning. However, I didn't use the same name as the original, and I didn't take copyrighted artwork or music from the originals.
Using the same name is a clear trademark violation, and NAMCO has to tell them to stop, or they risk losing their trademark here.
As far as copyright goes, you can't copyright the idea of a "be chased around a maze while gathering prizes, and have power-ups that sometimes let you chase the monsters" game. However, there are a lot of ways to express that idea in a game, and copyright protects NAMCO's particular expression. There's plenty of room left for someone to do a similar game, but different enough that it incorporates no protected elements. From the descriptions i've read from people who played it before it was taken down, they did not stray far at all from NAMCO's particular expression.
A damned good case can be made that learning how to imitate the idea of something without copying the expression is an important skill that any professional or serious programmer should learn.
Let's see it from an evolutionary standpoint: societies that allow themselves to be shackled, bound, and immobilized by excessive red tape (including all this IP nonsense) will ultimately go the way of the dodo. I.e. they will become extinct, while other, more dynamic societies, will arise and prosper and replace those dinosaurs that our societies have become.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
That is merely an assertion of the "intellectual property" would-be landlords, in fact it is easily disproved: progress existed long before patents, in fact patents were present for something like the last 1% of recorded human history. And before you start talking about how fast that last bit developed, that has nothing whatsoever to do with patents but with easy access to and free exchange of information between scientists and inventors, the very thing that is now being restricted, combined with a critical mass of population density and transportation capabilities. Patents were simply inconsequential, having accounted for only a tiny part of the industrial output of that period, not to mention the fact that some industrial powers (I am looking at you USA) developed precisely because they ignored patents claimed by their former bosses (Britain in this case).
If the empires of the past had guarded their "intellectual" "property" so jealously as these money-grubbing little cunts, we'd all be shitting in open trenches today.
Speaking of Google, I googled for user 124scratch, and found more of his evil deeds. If you thought NAMCO's response was bad, wait until Nintendo finds out that their beloved Donkey Kong has been reimplemented (a.k.a. pilfered!) Nintendo is on par with Disney for being protective about their copyrights.
http://scratch.mit.edu/projects/124scratch/1217451
It's buggy to be sure, but it has the foundations of a very good port. Which in this case, is a bad thing.
I'll stick with Atari 2600 coding, where the graphics are so primitive that modern video game companies couldn't even recognize their game has been ported. Hopefully I'll have Crysis 2600 ready in time for Christmas.
Take off every Sig. For great justice.
Which, according to the True Believers in the "free market" religion, can only be an all-encompassing, boundless, unstoppable and never satiated greed that burns within one's belly like a fire ...
Of course most scientific discoveries were made out of a desire to discover and understand, not even a single penny entering the equation at any time, other then to fund the research with. Most inventions were made because some difficulty or need annoyed the inventor, not because he wanted his thing featured at late night infomercials. In fact greed is a very poor motivator because it tends to lead to "inventions" whose only purpose is to somehow make money, irrespective if they actually work or have hidden side effects.
Yes, lets consider this company which supplies utterly useless crap, "demand" for which is manufactured wholesale by attempting to brainwash the unsuspecting dupes that "jewelery" will somehow improve their self-esteem or if they do not get it, they will be seen as "lesser" by their peers. The term "parasites" comes to mind.
Given that you equate "motivation" with greed and the crap peddled on the late-night infomercials with "inventions" and "progress", further discussion is likely to be a waste of time.
The fact that the "intellectual property" crowd has not yet achieved their desired goals completely does not mean that they are not in the process of doing so. With every 100+ year copyright the field of possible gaming ideas that are not covered narrows since there is a finite number of fundamental variations on the interaction with a game and claims of "significant similarities" become more and more viable to pursue the "derivative works" tithe collection strategy.
You clearly do not grasp the scope of the copyright. Any work even remotely similar can be attempted to be acquired by a mega-corp via claims of it being somehow "derivative" (subject to wholly subjective and utterly whimsical since no scientific formulae exist for this - and highly bribe sensitive - opinion of a judge) and no indy studio is going to withstand a multi-million legal assault by a Sony, a Viacom or an Electronic Arts. The only reason these two-bit gaming productions are not molested is precisely because they are precisely that, beneath the contempt of these mega-corporations. Little cockroaches feeding on the crumbs that fell unnoticed from the feast table.
You defeat your own arguments. Disneys of the world are doing quite fine, thank you, by ever expanding their control over the popular culture and by acquiring rights in perpetuity to anything that can be a base for further creations, in fact these very children stories are also being acquired by the likes of Disney for their "portfolios" of "intellectual property" and so they are the only ones to gain from it, to the detriment of the humanity at large.
Except, of course, the counter-rotating blades do nothing whatsoever for sparks as they are the result of friction that does not disappear magically because you got two, three or twenty blades (advanced saws use fluid coolants and lubricants for that) and fire-fighters use hydraulic-operated cutting jaws because they allow for precision cutting without exposing victims to flying bits of metal and rotating blades. Also, fire-departaments do not buy anything from infomercials. Ever. The target audience is the gullible public.
Late-night infomercials were the traditional domain of con-men and scammers since the first day they were broadcast. In fact the only serious product I could imagine being sold there would be a stamp with which you could stamp your forehead so it could proclaim to the world "I am a homo-idiotus, a specimen of a TV-stupefied 'consumer' whose wits were stillborn and whose gullibility is infinite. I buy stuff from infomercials! No brain within." That way we could easily tell at a glance whose "opinions" to disregard before he opens his mouth.
Come to think of it, the infomercial victim crowd is very likely composed of the same people who make all that email spam profitable. More of your kind of "innovation".
I will make an (only one) exception in replying to an AC, further AC comments will be ignored as odds are that you are down-moderating me with your real account.
Your confusion stems from conflating "aesthetics" with corporate activities. While it is true that people might find one thing or another "attractive" those perceptions have long since became subject to manipulation by the "fashion" industry, with the aim of "creating market" for disposable crap. Jewelery is in the same category, and has been worked by the con-men so thoroughly that you end up with nonsensical psychosis like "engagement rings" and "anniversary rings" etc. If only aesthetics was involved, the jewelery (and clothing) markets would not reach even 1% of their present size.
Hence "parasitic" activities, since a tiny conceivable gain is visible for the "consumers" at a massive expense.
It can also be put another way: a good indicator of "value" of something is the resale price of the said thing as measured immediately after purchase. For jewelery in the US the drop is frequently in 80% range.