clyde

Stealing

Recommended Posts

I thought of an interesting hypothetical:

You are doing a Let's Play of Second Life.

-Do you feel comfortable walking into someone's virtual house while screen-capturing with intent to publish?

-If so, let's suppose the creator/owner comes in, you tell them what you are doing and they then tell you to stop. Is that enough reason for you to stop?

Again, this is just a hypothetical situation that I find interesting for conversational purposes, I don't have immediate plans to do this, but I will say that Let's Plays of Second Life sounds like a great idea and I do lean towards liberty on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd probably feel comfortable walking in if it wasn't made apparent that that wasn't okay with the creator/owner

 

i'd definitely leave if they asked me to because otherwise i am just being a dick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Liberty" a curious word to use, it's not matter of rights and freedoms. Like a lot of things the situation like the one you mention comes down to being a decent person. Generally speaking you should respect the privacy of others, it may seem that privacy is instantly sacrificed in the online world but I see no reason why that should be true. You can wander into someone else's home in real life and start taking photos (assuming its not locked*) but you probably don't and that's probably because it's not acceptable. I guess it comes down to the old battle of privacy versus public interest in journalism.

 

These online worlds have not let evolved social boundaries and a lot of people seem to think that because of that there isn't any that it's total free reign. I think that's partly also because when playing a game (and I'm not sure that's a good classification for Second Life) they're used to the boundaries being the 'rules' of the game and anything not covered by those rules is sort of martial law anarchistic zone.

It's starting to happen though, although not entirely successfully. I was playing on a Minecraft server for a while and there were social rules which couldn't really be enforced beyond removing access to the server (man I wish people could be banished to the unexplored wilderness) and mostly it worked but it was a small server with a whitelist, most of the players vaguely knew each other from a forum, it would be a totally different situation with a group of randoms (although I'd love to do a study on that). It still wasn't entirely successful though, people had clearly signposted homes but someone still went around stealing other people's diamonds. Mostly nobody touched other people's stuff, because that would be a dick move.

 

Sorry about getting sidetracked there, I find it an interesting area :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Brett Eveleigh

 

I find it useful to think about public policy and social interactions on a liberty/security spectrum, so that's why I use that word. I tend to think that liberty is more important than security when it comes to Second Life let's plays. My lean towards liberty has it's limits of course. 

I personally enjoy when people get side-tracked on the forums, I'm just grateful that everyone who posts posts so that I'm not just talking to myself and I can see how similar or different my views are on these matters and I can get a larger breadth of perspectives. The side-tracks are often expressive about what is informing the views the poster has on the subject at hand. 

 

A big difference I see between walking into someone's Second Life home and walking into someone's actual, physical-world home is that there is a great difference in physical security. Walking into a real home as a complete stranger is threatening physical violence. Walking into someone's Second Life home is threatening public awareness(?), but there is no threat of physical violence. I see virtual worlds as being places where we can experiment with liberty with far less consequence to both the dancer and the person who is having their toes stepped on. I value that expectation of permission and I don't feel comfortable giving it up as freely as others seem to. For example, Second Life seems like a public space where resources and space aren't scarce, so people can express themselves with buildings and such without having to worry about taking something (or only taking very little) from others. Remember that every time someone claims ownership of something, that means that they are removing it from the commons. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like almost everyone is stealing in the game business. In one way or another. Greed.

Did you have a specific example in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought of an interesting hypothetical:

You are doing a Let's Play of Second Life.

-Do you feel comfortable walking into someone's virtual house while screen-capturing with intent to publish?

-If so, let's suppose the creator/owner comes in, you tell them what you are doing and they then tell you to stop. Is that enough reason for you to stop?

Again, this is just a hypothetical situation that I find interesting for conversational purposes, I don't have immediate plans to do this, but I will say that Let's Plays of Second Life sounds like a great idea and I do lean towards liberty on this issue.

 

My ignorance of Second Life is showing, but I assume that it's possible to mark your house as private so that strangers can't just wander in (I can't imagine the game lacks such a basic function). Similarly, I assume there's an option to boot unwanted players from your house. If that's the case, opting not to mark a virtual space as private seems like implicitly granting permission. If someone creates any sort of content and then uploads it to the public-facing internet, it's hardly reasonable for them to complain about people viewing it, and I see a Second Life house the same way.

 

I think any expectation of privacy comes from people thinking of it the same way as physical houses, but as you pointed out, that parallel doesn't work because a trespasser in your virtual house can't steal your possessions or assault you.

Speaking of stealing, virtual spaces and social rules, this has reminded me of an interesting example from the MMO City of Heroes. Necessary background: It's a fairly standard PVE combat-focused MMORPG, player versus player combat is restricted to certain zones dedicated to that. In some of these PVP zones, players can perform a series of PVE tasks to gather resources which are used to acquire certain powerful one-use abilities. These abilities are desirable enough that players uninterested in PVP will visit the PVP zones to attempt to acquire them. If another player kills you in a PVP zone, all of those resources you gathered in that zone are transferred to your killer.

 

This is a case where the game mechanics are built to encourage stealing. What's interesting is the behaviour that emerged. Usually if someone is wandering through a PVP zone and they spot another player, they will start a fight (even in the zones where there are no resources to be stolen, people just like to fight). However, I played the game for a long time, and I started to notice an unspoken code of conduct. If a player saw another player engaged in the resource gathering tasks, they were far less likely to attack than if their target was simply wandering the streets. Sometimes I'd see someone pass by a resoruce gathering player and give them a wave of the hand or a salute, behaviour I never once saw when resource gathering wasn't involved. The game incentivized theft, and yet knowing the other person would lose their resources made people less willing to attack. 

How do you feel about the ethics of stealing from someone in that scenario? The game makes it clear to players that they can be stolen from and that it's an intentional mechanic, everyone present is opting in to the system, and yet many people still prefer not to steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you have a specific example in mind?

 

Candy Crush. The app. Stolen by a big company from a "little guy".

 

Ok not everyone. But a lot of people steal/clone from each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

@Brett E

 

I find it useful to think about public policy and social interactions on a liberty/security spectrum, so that's why I use that word. I tend to think that liberty is more important than security when it comes to Second Life let's plays. My lean towards liberty has it's limits of course. 

I personally enjoy when people get side-tracked on the forums, I'm just grateful that everyone who posts posts so that I'm not just talking to myself and I can see how similar or different my views are on these matters and I can get a larger breadth of perspectives. The side-tracks are often expressive about what is informing the views the poster has on the subject at hand. 

 

A big difference I see between walking into someone's Second Life home and walking into someone's actual, physical-world home is that there is a great difference in physical security. Walking into a real home as a complete stranger is threatening physical violence. Walking into someone's Second Life home is threatening public awareness(?), but there is no threat of physical violence. I see virtual worlds as being places where we can experiment with liberty with far less consequence to both the dancer and the person who is having their toes stepped on. I value that expectation of permission and I don't feel comfortable giving it up as freely as others seem to. For example, Second Life seems like a public space where resources and space aren't scarce, so people can express themselves with buildings and such without having to worry about taking something (or only taking very little) from others. Remember that every time someone claims ownership of something, that means that they are removing it from the commons. 

 

I think it should be more about respect and what's morally acceptable than the fear of physical violence that prevents someone from intruding upon another's space and it's this which I feel should translate to the digital world. 

Which isn't to say that I want the digital world to be an identical copy of the physical but I think more respect wouldn't significantly damage creativity. Of course the 'comedians' that decry having an opinion as the end of comedy would disagree :)

 

Candy Crush. The app. Stolen by a big company from a "little guy".

 

Ok not everyone. But a lot of people steal/clone from each other.

 

Well it's a grey area, of course we all do it to some extent but I feel that's why this thread exists, to explore the boundaries of what's acceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright I have a specific, concrete, real life example I'm curious folks' opinions on.

 

I made a clone of Gimme Friction Baby, a flash game I really loved a few years back, for phones. I made it because I REALLY like the game and wanted a mobile version for myself, and figured if I was gonna put in the time I might as well just put it out. Before starting, I attempted to contact the author, but wasn't able to find him. Had I been able to, I would have pitched a version that was virtually identical to the original but with either some purchasable cosmetics or ads to make a little money. Instead, I rushed to get the game finished in 2 days, since I didn't feel comfortable making money off it and didn't want to spend a lot of time on a free game. The final version is passable but not ideal.

 

Now, a few months later, I've been debating working on it a little more and polishing it up; mostly UI and art to make it look and feel a little more professional. But I don't feel like I can justify dumping more time into it without adding some sort of monetization. I also don't want to drastically change the look or style of the game away from the original, since I think it's basically perfect. I've credited the original author in both the app description and in-game, and I feel this version is morally acceptable to have released given the circumstances. But is it ethical for me to continue working on it and attempt to make a little money too? Is there a morally just monetization strategy in this situation, or do I need to significantly distance myself from the original in some way first?

 

For more context here's the app on iOS and Android.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, well you're not the only person to have cloned it. I've played at least two of these games on mobile but the names aren't coming to me right now. The versions I've played were variations but very subtle ones so I'd probably still class them as clones and I'm pretty sure they were monetised in some way. That doesn't really make things any clearer though, just because others have done it (although I have no idea who the creators are so one could be the original developer) does not change the moral question.

 

You're not pretending to be the original creator and even credit them so that's in your favour, on the other hand if you do monetise it then it's basically an admission of monetary gain using someone else's intellectual property which in the incredibly remote possibility of legal action would not be ideal.

 

In your situation I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I changed it enough to not appear to be a direct clone but more of a heavy influence. I do understand your concerns about the deviating from the original design and aesthetic but I don't think I'd be able to resolve the dissonance any other way (apart from getting permission or profit sharing with the original dev but neither seems possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This in no way constitutes legal advice, just my moral thoughts. If you're confident that you have done your due diligence in trying to contact this person, I think it's ok to release the clone as long as you'll recognise that it's not wholly your work.

If the original creator comes forward about it, you should be willing to offer them some cut if they want it (though what amount is fair, I have no idea). I think your game should acknowledge the source even if the creator never surfaces.

You've still done real work so I wouldn't claim it's not yours but I'd consider it important to acknowledge to yourself and the players that someone else's game was your jumping off point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your situation I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I changed it enough to not appear to be a direct clone but more of a heavy influence. I do understand your concerns about the deviating from the original design and aesthetic but I don't think I'd be able to resolve the dissonance any other way (apart from getting permission or profit sharing with the original dev but neither seems possible).

I completely agree; the problem is that for me, the minimalism of the original is part of what I find so appealing about it so I'd rather just leave it as-is than compromise the original design (though admittedly by rushing to make it, I've kinda already done that). There's some part of me that feels like preserving the original and putting it on new platforms is a public service, and that as long as the monetized parts are completely optional it's OK for me to profit off it in the service of making a great game available. Obviously though that's not legally the case and without being able to talk to the creator about how they feel about it, its unfair and kind of a moot point.

While researching, I found a game called Orbital that might be one of the clones you're thinking of. It's $3 and acknowledges Gimme Friction Baby and Wouter Visser (the creator) in the app description, but also drastically change how it looks (it has a Geometry Wars vibe) and adds some mechanics. My read is that this is fine, and probably more generous to the creator than similar clones would be.

This in no way constitutes legal advice, just my moral thoughts. If you're confident that you have done your due diligence in trying to contact this person, I think it's ok to release the clone as long as you'll recognise that it's not wholly your work.

I don't even know what constitutes due diligence here; I searched the name and found a lot of people with it, including several game developers (none of whom list Gimme Friction in their portfolios or elsewhere), and there's no contact information on the site it was first hosted on. I considered starting to message every Wouter Visser with a visible interest in games about it but felt kinda uncomfortable? Not a great excuse, but I felt like that wasn't a good approach.

Anyway I don't actually know what I want out of this discussion, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot so thanks for wondering aloud about this with me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe throw it out to the internet at large (e.g. twitter) and be like "#gamedev i made this pls halp"? To try to find the guy I mean. I dunno if that hashtag is ever used for that kind of thing though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt I'll actually put the effort forward to do it, but at the moment I'm fantasizing about screen-capturing large quantities of this documentary to make a visual novel. It seems like the right thing to do.

 

I'd probably make narratives which are derivative too like: "Let's go dancing after we go honey-hunting! I got my bidis. Maybe we will find a poisonous lizard."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I completely agree; the problem is that for me, the minimalism of the original is part of what I find so appealing about it so I'd rather just leave it as-is than compromise the original design (though admittedly by rushing to make it, I've kinda already done that). There's some part of me that feels like preserving the original and putting it on new platforms is a public service, and that as long as the monetized parts are completely optional it's OK for me to profit off it in the service of making a great game available. Obviously though that's not legally the case and without being able to talk to the creator about how they feel about it, its unfair and kind of a moot point.

While researching, I found a game called Orbital that might be one of the clones you're thinking of. It's $3 and acknowledges Gimme Friction Baby and Wouter Visser (the creator) in the app description, but also drastically change how it looks (it has a Geometry Wars vibe) and adds some mechanics. My read is that this is fine, and probably more generous to the creator than similar clones would be.

I don't even know what constitutes due diligence here; I searched the name and found a lot of people with it, including several game developers (none of whom list Gimme Friction in their portfolios or elsewhere), and there's no contact information on the site it was first hosted on. I considered starting to message every Wouter Visser with a visible interest in games about it but felt kinda uncomfortable? Not a great excuse, but I felt like that wasn't a good approach.

Anyway I don't actually know what I want out of this discussion, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot so thanks for wondering aloud about this with me.

 

I don't have anything meaningful to add but yep Orbital is the one I played. It's interesting to hear how that game credits the original though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I found the source of that greco-roman pillar in early part of your game clyde.  I saw something identical in Columbia University mail ads.  But that style is pretty generic so maybe not, but it did look identical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I found the source of that greco-roman pillar in early part of your game clyde. I saw something identical in Columbia University mail ads. But that style is pretty generic so maybe not, but it did look identical.

If you are talking about Appropriation it's from the facade of a building in the business district of Baltimore. But I love that you are still thinking about it.

I was watching a interview with John Romero and he was talking about how the background, surrounding terrain in Knee-Deep in the Dead was from a photo of some place in China from a book and that someone eventually found it. I was reminded of all this stuff when I saw that. I'm working on two games right now. One where I am lazily stealing images from people's Flickr pages for a visual-novel (I may eventually trace them poorly or blur them a bit to lessen public anger, but it's not a priority at the moment) and another where I'm making a gallery of art where the only things I could attribute are the tools I'm using (thus far). Oh wait no, now I remember. I'm making the sound-effects with proprietary VSTs in such a way that it might be illegal, but will probably not be enforced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I love that you are still thinking about it.

 

Just to clarify, this isn't an attempt to make a passing snide remark?

 

If not then oh yeah, I guess I'm blessed/cursed with weirdly petty memory.  Also got the ad like a week ago which coincided with the heated exchange on DMCA on the other thread (hence my raised suspicion on taking comments under good faith).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been reading that thread, but I probably would enjoy it.

I wasn't being snide, I sincerely glad to see you are still thinking about the Appropriation game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record I've pretty much settled on trying to attribute without asking for permission; which is the most dangerous mixture of all. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now