[taylor]

If it's the latter, it gets a little less bulletproof, simply because Interplay took you to court, but my lawyer friend said that when the source code to a game is released, it would make a very very very hard case for Interplay to prove that it did not intend for people to freely download the game. 

So on either front, people are covered.  It's not a matter of not getting caught (which no one would, a bankrupt company is not going to waste resources on a lawsuit for the downloading of an 8 year old game) it's simply not illegal.  Interplay and Volition made the awesome choice to make FS2 absolutely free to anyone who wants it. 

Uh, no.  The code for the engine, and the content for the game, are two entirely separate entities.  Releasing the source code has absolutely no bearing on the distribution of the game's content.  The copyrights on the code for the engine, and the copyrights on the content that went into making the game, are mutually exclusive.  Your lawyer friend should be well aware of that.

Secondly, Interplay has nothing to do with it.  It's Volition that owns the copyright on the content, and the copyright on the majority of the code for the engine.  The didn't release all of the code, since they didn't control it, anything that wasn't owned by Volition was ripped out of the source release.  Also, there are two different EULAs: one hardcopy (in the manual), one electronic (in the installer itself).  The hardcopy version DOES NOT contain the "friends and acquaintances" statement.  In fact, it expressly forbids distribution of the game.  How that plays out in a court of law I don't know, but it's something that has to be considered by anyone who is attempting to iron out the legality of downloading.

And, on more than one occasion, one or more Volition employees have directly stated that the content of the game is NOT free, and that it is NOT legal to put up for mass download.  I not sure that said Volition employees ever went to law school, but their statements would be pertinent in a court of law.  And that, again, is something anyone attempting to determine the legality of downloading will have to account for.

[karajorma]

Yep. I'd have to agree with Taylor on this one.

Although not yet a common practice quite a few companies have released the source code to their games while retaining distribution rights on the game data. In fact this isn't even the first time Volition has done it as the company they used to be part of did it with Descent 1 & 2.

The idea is that people port/improve the game and they sell more copies of the game than they otherwise would do.

So the release of the source code should not automatically be taken as proof that a company has relinquished their rights to the game. If FS2 was still commercially available they'd probably have made a fairly nice bit of cash out of the SCP.

[Bob-san]

Kara; the point is with the release of the SC was that it still is Volition's game engine; the rights to Freespace and Freespace2 belong to Interplay. Interplay manufactures the game; they are in a bit of debt, and can no longer produce copies of an unpopular 8-year-old space-shooter; the last good game of the era.

Volition has every right to release their source-code on the Freespace engine; Interplay can't do anything about it. We make no profit off of the SCP, so as long as we continue to make no profit, we are allowed use of the code.

[karajorma]

No. Agentbolt's point was that the game is legal to download. It isn't.

My point was simply to give an example of why a company might release the source but keep control of the data. In court all V would have to do is claim that they were trying to do that (or simply get some free publicity for an old game of theirs) to shoot down any argument that they intended for the game to be freely distributed.

[taylor]

karajorma can correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that Interplay only owns/owned the distribution rights to Freespace2.  All of the copyrights have always remained with Volition.  Volition doesn't have the ability to distribute new copies of Freespace2 as a game, and they can't go to another publisher to distribute new copies, but they still have all of the copyrights on the content and can enforce them at any point that they wish.  So, technically the distribution of the game data violates not only Volition's copyright on the content, but also Interplay's distribution rights.  Double whammy.

The original FreeSpace is an entirely different matter though, and I'm pretty certain that it's totally illegal to distribute the content of that.

And Interplay gave up on Freespace2 long before they had debt issues, so that really is not a valid point.

[Agentbolt]

I'll certainly concede the point that Volition could turn around and say that they were merely releasing the source code as a publicity thing to sel more games.  The chances of them doing that are roughly zero, but they could, so that kind of shoots up my argument that it's ironclad.  My lawyer buddy might need to do more homework on this.

However, the argument:

Uh, no.  The code for the engine, and the content for the game, are two entirely separate entities.  Releasing the source code has absolutely no bearing on the distribution of the game's content.  The copyrights on the code for the engine, and the copyrights on the content that went into making the game, are mutually exclusive.  Your lawyer friend should be well aware of that.

Is kind of missing the point.  My friend is not pointing to the Source Code's release as a legally binding precedent for distributing the game.  It was simply pointed out that it'd be a tough sell to claim for Volition to back up that they never wanted people to get free copies of the game after releasing their source code.  He also stated it was less ironclad an argument.  It's solely pointed out as a common sense argument. 

The LETTER of the law is absolutely on the side of anyone distributing .ISOs.  An .ISO is a copy of a CD.  The EULA specifically states that the software (copyrighted materials AND everything else would be included under such a broad definition) may be copied to distribute to friends and acquiantances.  The legal defintion of the term "acquaintance" is VERY broad.  It doesn't even mean someone you personally know, it just means someone you have knowledge of.  "To be acquainted with".  Yes, there are two EULAs.  Interplay and Volition could not cry foul and claim one EULA was more valid than the other if it ever went to court, whichever EULA the user was aware of would be the one considered.  If he/she was aware of both, then there'd be no legal mechanism to protect Interplay/Volitions assets and enforce the no copying one, it'd be the judges decision, and again it'd go back to a common sense argument of what Interplay and Volition intended for their software after abandoning it, going bankrupt, and releasing the source code in the eight years since it was released.  As for Volition employees saying that the game is not intended for mass downloading, that would depend on who they are.  If they're coders or rank and file folks, their opinion on what Interplay and Voltion's intent was would be legally meaningless. 

Past that, if you still disagree, you can always PM me and I'll give you my friend's email and you can argue it with him.  I'm clearly not a lawyer so I'm simply passing on what he told me.  And hey, he's human, he could be horribly wrong.  It seems pretty simple to me though.  Certainly no one's ever gotten busted for getting their grubby mitts on an .iso yet.  And again, I stress, I am NOT advocating posting anything like that here.  It's against the board rules regardless of any arguments on its technical legality.  But if you find a Freespace 2 .ISO somehwere, legally speaking, there is zero chance of you ever getting into any trouble for downloading it.  By the letter of the law, it's not illegal.  This is a lawyer saying this, not me. 

[taylor]

Is kind of missing the point.  My friend is not pointing to the Source Code's release as a legally binding precedent for distributing the game.  It was simply pointed out that it'd be a tough sell to claim for Volition to back up that they never wanted people to get free copies of the game after releasing their source code.  He also stated it was less ironclad an argument.  It's solely pointed out as a common sense argument.

No.  The argument is that if you give someone the blueprints to your house, it's obvious that you didn't give them your actual house as well.  That is common sense and directly applies here.  Volition only gave us the blueprints, not the house.  Except for those of us who actually paid for the game in the first place, no one has any try legal right to possess the game data.  And no court of law bordering on sanity would conclude otherwise by Volition's act of giving us the source code.

The EULA specifically states that the software (copyrighted materials AND everything else would be included under such a broad definition) may be copied to distribute to friends and acquiantances.  The legal defintion of the term "acquaintance" is VERY broad.  It doesn't even mean someone you personally know, it just means someone you have knowledge of.

Exactly the point, you don't have knowledge of the people doing mass downloading.  The only chance you have to possibly meet the deffinition is if everyone who has the file up for download requires that each downloader sign a guestbook or something, with verified identity, before being given the download link. 

"To be acquainted with".  Yes, there are two EULAs.  Interplay and Volition could not cry foul and claim one EULA was more valid than the other if it ever went to court, whichever EULA the user was aware of would be the one considered.  If he/she was aware of both, then there'd be no legal mechanism to protect Interplay/Volitions assets and enforce the no copying one, it'd be the judges decision, and again it'd go back to a common sense argument of what Interplay and Volition intended for their software after abandoning it, going bankrupt, and releasing the source code in the eight years since it was released.

Again, Volition didn't abandon the game, they still own the copyrights, they just can't distribute new copies.  "Awareness" of the EULA makes little difference as far as I know.  It depends on which one came first.  If the printed version was finalized after the installer was, then the printed version takes precedence.  The simple act of opening the box the game came in and putting the disc in your computer would have been an agreement on your part to the terms of the printed EULA, whether you ever actually read it or not.

As for Volition employees saying that the game is not intended for mass downloading, that would depend on who they are.  If they're coders or rank and file folks, their opinion on what Interplay and Voltion's intent was would be legally meaningless. 

Their opinion, regardless of their legal-minded status, holds more meaning than either yours or mine.  And probably more so than your lawyer friend's as well.  None of us are privy to the particulars of the rights between Interplay and Volition.  The exact meaning and intent of the EULA statement has never been clarified.  To all of this, only the opinions and interpretations of Interplay and Volition hold any real weight on this matter.  No 3rd party can give a truely valid opinion with just the facts that we have.

Putting the game up for download is illegal, by the letter of the law.  Legality isn't a grey area, something is legal or it is not, there is no inbetween.   Until Volition and/or Interplay comes forward and officially states that downloading the game is legal, no one really has a leg to stand on.  Period.

[karajorma]

karajorma can correct me if I'm wrong here, but my understanding is that Interplay only owns/owned the distribution rights to Freespace2.  All of the copyrights have always remained with Volition.  Volition doesn't have the ability to distribute new copies of Freespace2 as a game, and they can't go to another publisher to distribute new copies, but they still have all of the copyrights on the content and can enforce them at any point that they wish.  So, technically the distribution of the game data violates not only Volition's copyright on the content, but also Interplay's distribution rights.  Double whammy.

I've heard two different explainations. The first is basically what you state and the second is that Volition have to sign over some of their IP rights in the publishing deal to Interplay (certainly something is stopping from simply making FS3 and getting THQ to publish it). I very much doubt we'll ever know what exactly what is going on as contracts like this tend to stay secret anyway.

It doesn't really matter who holds to the rights to the data though as neither party has stepped forward and given permission for that stuff to become freeware.  AFAIK you're also completely right that putting the game up for download is a violation of Interplay's distribution rights.

[CaptJosh]

Interplay is as dead as SCO. They've just managed to figure it out without Monty Pythonesque Black Knight style hystrionics.

[taylor]

Interplay is as dead as SCO.

Doesn't really matter, because Interplay's rights still exist.  They are in bankruptcy, which means that someone else could come along and purchase the distribution rights, and then enforce them.  Just because Interplay doesn't currently have the resources to enforce their rights, doesn't mean that someone would let it slide too.

[CaptJosh]

Nobody wants to buy Interplay. Last I saw, they were about a half million in the hole, and that was a few years ago. The only people with any possible current interest in buying Interplay might be , so as to get the rights they need to finally complete the FS series.

[karajorma]

And what if people simply wait for Interplay to go into receivership and simply buy up the assets when they do?

[ShivanSpS]

I live in Argentina, there is a lack of some "internet" laws here... basically, only is illegal if i make copy's, and sell it for profits.

So, they have to come and get me here hahaha, xD, a year ago, egosoft discover that i have a wares copy of is game, they banned me from they forums and she told my that they going to request infomation to my ISP and forwarded to legal authority's... haha i still waiting....