[Candle]

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by ozzie

It's the worst joke which isn't one, legally maybe right, ethically definately wrong.

Nobody has an ethical right to infringe copyright. Sorry, I know that you're disappointed (as we all are), but that doesn't make Vivendi ethically wrong to close the project.

[After a brisk nap]

The way they handled this issue can be ethically wrong even if it's not in general immoral to assert your copyright.

For instance, tolerating them for four years and then shutting them down a couple of months before release, that's just being assholes about it.

[AFGNCAAP]

They could have hoped for the project to die of natural causes, like it happens to 90% of all fanfic games. Now, after the trailer was released and so on, they realised the game is reaching the completion and the aforementioned hope is lost.

Not that I cheer because of KQIX demise - it was THE only fanmade sequel I actually looked forward to. But I must agree with the sentiment, expressed here as well as in the thread in "Adventure", that undertaking such a high profile violation of copyrights and hoping Vivendi just won't mind was mightily stupid.

[austin2359]

Here is the way I look at it. Vendedi has the legal right to do this, but they in no way, shape, or form have the moral right. And when push comes to shove, a Corporation will be judged partially on its morality. There will be a backlash with regards to sales of the collection. A lot of people don't forgive and forget. The stupid one isn't KQIX, it's Venvedi.

Also, there are ways to work around this. The bottom line is that if they modify certain parts of the game there is nothing Venvedi can do to stop them, try as they might.

[fyddleman]

I'm very disheartened to hear about the KQIX closure and have been waiting years for it to be released to the public for download.

The real problem is the Sierra stopped creating sequals to Space Quest, King's quest, Police quest, etc years ago. Those were the real games of yesterday, and adventure gaming seems to be making a come back recently, which brings me to my point. Why doesn't Vivendi pick up the work on KQIX, polish it and publish it as a real sequel? They could even hire some of the developers, actors, writers, etc that worked on it.

For some reason, even the newer so-called adventure games (Longest Journey, Siberia, every other game by "The Adventure Company", etc) do not do the same for me as the adventures games originally released by Sierra, LucasArts, etc. Sure, they are good games, but just don't feel the same. Maybe the big companies will start listening to the fans and see that there is still money to be made on the adventure games of the 80's and 90's.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

They could have hoped for the project to die of natural causes, like it happens to 90% of all fanfic games. Now, after the trailer was released and so on, they realised the game is reaching the completion and the aforementioned hope is lost.

Yes, that was probably their motivation. That doesn't make it the right thing to do.

[austin2359]

If Venvedi wants to complain then they should get up off their lazy *sses and make a game, not moan about their "rights."

The market is either worth it or its not. They determined that it wasn't worth it so they should shut their mouths. Just another example of Corporate executives being so pampered that they lose contact with reality and the unwritten rules of society.

Strong language here, but its appropriate for the context of the situation.

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by AFGNCAAP

Not that I cheer because of KQIX demise - it was THE only fanmade sequel I actually looked forward to. But I must agree with the sentiment, expressed here as well as in the thread in "Adventure", that undertaking such a high profile violation of copyrights and hoping Vivendi just won't mind was mightily stupid.

I don't see how it's stupid. I mean, let's see:

1. Fangames like SQ:TLC and SQ0 get made. Vivendi doesn't blink.

2. AGDI does remakes. They're certainly high-profile in the community, and have also received print publicity. Vivendi gives them official permission to continue making and distributing their games.

3. Colin from SQ7.org has been in contact with Vivendi's legal folk almost since the project started several years ago. Vivendi has as of yet mostly ignored him.

4. There's several other SQ fangames currently in development. Nothing from Vivendi. There are likely fangames in development based on other Sierra series that I am not currently aware of.

5. The KQIX team has been in production for 4 years. Vivendi hasn't breathed a word in all that time.

I do agree that I think the KQIX team should have made a greater effort to contact Vivendi (they have attempted to do so in the past), but honestly I don't see how they would have received any more of a response than Colin has.

So, as far as anyone could tell up until now, Vivendi had approved one team's games and ignored everyone else. So I don't think it was "stupid" to think Vivendi might not care.

It may be legal for Vivendi to shut the project down, but the way they did it was shoddy and awful. They could have shut the project down long before this when less work would be wasted and everyone's hopes wouldn't be dashed.

Or even better, they could have followed their own past precedent and not made it look like they were randomly picking who to give a pass and who to shut down. If Vivendi is going to try this, I fail to see how they can honestly justify going after one game and not the others.

I am not saying I would enjoy seeing Vivendi pick on the other fangames, because I most definitely would not. But you can't sit here and say "copyright is copyright" and point fingers solely at the KQIX team when there are plenty of other fangames Vivendi isn't bothering.

And I agree with Austin's sentiment. If Vivendi's going to invoke its copyright without coming off as a complete ass, it really needs to do something other than say "Yeah, we don't want to do s*** with this IP, but too bad, you can't either even though you actually care."

Peace & Luv, Liz

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

So, as far as anyone could tell up until now, Vivendi had approved one team's games and ignored everyone else. So I don't think it was "stupid" to think Vivendi might not care.

It may be legal for Vivendi to shut the project down, but the way they did it was shoddy and awful. They could have shut the project down long before this when less work would be wasted and everyone's hopes wouldn't be dashed.

I'll add two points here. First, I can't see how it isn't supid to infringe copyright without thinking that Vivendi might care. It's entirely their prerogative whether or not to allow fangames, and they have every right to make those choices on a whim. I find the idea that the KQ9 team made no real effort to seek permission for their project, despite the success of some other teams in this field, utterly bizarre. Did they just not feel like making the same effort that others had? And if not, why not? If they're not going to put in the effort to make peace with the legal department, how can they be upset if Vivendi closes them down?

Equally, shutting the project down early. Yes, that would have been nice. But doing that kind of thing would also cost Vivendi money. Someone has to write the cease and desist letters. If necessary, someone has to pay to post them. There have to be lawyers on standby in case the game makers fail to comply. All of these things cost a company time and money, so I can understand totally that Vivendi would ignore projects until they look likely to be released. That way, the projects that fall by the wayside don't have to be dealt with at Vivendi's expense.

While I understand your concerns, the ideas that some people have stated that Vivendi is in some way morally wrong to close down a copyright-infringing product is totally bizarre. Since when did it become morally acceptable to break copyright laws without permission?

[Jeysie]

I'll add two points here. First, I can't see how it isn't supid to infringe copyright without thinking that Vivendi might care. It's entirely their prerogative whether or not to allow fangames, and they have every right to make those choices on a whim.

It's their legal right to make choices on a whim, yes. But what we seem to be debating here is the morality of it, and I don't find that morally right.

Let's project this into a different situation. Let's say that you're back at school in a class. Three of your classmates each perform the same action that's against the rules. One is told it's OK to do it, one gets ignored, the third gets punished, and the teacher gives no explanation why. Would you find that morally acceptable? Would you sitting your chair not worry how the teacher would react to your actions? Especially if you wanted to do the same thing your classmates did, and the reward would be great if the teacher decided to give you permission or ignore you?

I can live with people having different opinions than me and finding different things from me unacceptable if they are consistent, stick to their opinions, and don't appear to play favorites. I see no reason why I shouldn't hold a company to the same personal moral ideals I do an individual person.

If Vivendi was consistent, shut down most fangames, and gave consistent reasons why they allowed others I wouldn't be sitting here debating the issue.

I find the idea that the KQ9 team made no real effort to seek permission for their project, despite the success of some other teams in this field, utterly bizarre. Did they just not feel like making the same effort that others had? And if not, why not? If they're not going to put in the effort to make peace with the legal department, how can they be upset if Vivendi closes them down?

From what the KQIX team members have said before they did contact Vivendi early in development and received no reply.

As I've said in other places I do agree that not continuing to try to contact Vivendi was not a good move. Nevertheless, as I laid out in my post above, all available evidence before now pointed that Vivendi approved of or didn't care about fangames. It's not the KQIX team's fault that Vivendi behaves inconsistently.

And I'd hardly say that other teams had "success" contacting Vivendi. AFAIK, AGDI didn't hear from Vivendi at all until they got their own C&D letter. And from what Colin's said in the past Vivendi has so far refused to give a concrete yay or nay to the SQ7.org project.

Equally, shutting the project down early. Yes, that would have been nice. But doing that kind of thing would also cost Vivendi money. Someone has to write the cease and desist letters. If necessary, someone has to pay to post them. There have to be lawyers on standby in case the game makers fail to comply. All of these things cost a company time and money, so I can understand totally that Vivendi would ignore projects until they look likely to be released. That way, the projects that fall by the wayside don't have to be dealt with at Vivendi's expense.

(shrugs) You know what? I really don't care. If I'm lazy and I know I should do something but I don't want to spare the effort, and I'm forced to do it later anyway and people get pissed at me, well, tough bananas for me. Again, I'm not going to exempt a company from the same ideals, especially one that's legally required to defend abuses of its IP or lose it.

Besides, Vivendi could have headed this off at the pass by acknowledging their fans to begin with and making a definitive public statement on their views about fanworks. I suspect that the number of people who would be daft enough to violate such a statement anyway knowing for sure Vivendi would close them down would be much more manageable. But Vivendi chose to ignore their fans, so, again, tough bananas dealing with the result.

While I understand your concerns, the ideas that some people have stated that Vivendi is in some way morally wrong to close down a copyright-infringing product is totally bizarre. Since when did it become morally acceptable to break copyright laws without permission?

I dunno, people have been creating fanfiction, fanart, fan filks, fanzines, fan *everything* for years now that all infringes on copyright to some degree. All of these things have a long history of existing in the creative arts world. Some writers and creators like Peter David even got their start making fanworks. Do you feel that fangames are any different?

If you reply to this and say you also condemn all other fanworks for the same reason, I'll respectfully agree to disagree on this specific point.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[RLacey]

OK, you've moderated some of my views (making this discussion productive! ). I'm not a fan of the schoolteacher analogy, though. I wouldn't like being told off for performing the action, but if I knew that whether or not I was punished was entirely at the discretion of the teacher I probably wouldn't have performed the action. Equally, you might not get stopped by the police if you speed while driving, but that doesn't mean that you should do it in case you get away with it...

Then again, I was a teacher's pet a while back.


RLacey

[austin2359]

Well what I said in the other thread is that Venvedi has a legal right to do this, but no moral right. There are such things as unwritten rules and Venvedi, by doing this but not getting off their *sses and making their own sequal is breaking them. And this can be worked around by changing the names of characters and fixing the plot up a bit. Also, people don't forgive and forget so there will be a backlash on collection sales, whereas the game would have stimulated the sales, making Venvedi out of contact with reality and unintelligent, and sometimes pampered Corporate Executives get that way.

As you can see, this not only hurts KQIX, it hurts Venvedi.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by austin2359

Well what I said in the other thread is that Venvedi has a legal right to do this, but no moral right.

I'm still at a loss to understand this moral right thing. I honestly, genuinely can't see how it can be morally justifiable to infringe copyright, and I honestly, genuinely can't see how it can be immoral to protect that same copyright. Unfair given the fortunes of others, perhaps. Disappointing, yes. But not morally inexcusable.

[austin2359]

Venvedi is basically following the letter of the law but not the spirit of the law, because nobody is selling it and Venvedi won't make their own.

[RLacey]

Originally Posted by austin2359

Venvedi is basically following the leter of the law but not the spirit of the law, because nobody is selling it and Venvedi won't make their own.

Remind me to go and make another Star Wars film, then. Or a Star Trek film. Or Monkey Island 5. Or another Zork game. Are you saying that any unofficial product, so long as it's not being sold, can infringe copyright without you having any problem with it? I find that idea quite worrying...

[austin2359]

Yes. If it has fallen into old-fashioned status, and the producers clearly don't want to progress it, yes. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

[Filmman]

Hey is there other topic about this in the Advneture thread But it sad they had to close down the King Quest IX project I was lookinf forward to play the first game this year too it sad

[Jeysie]

Originally Posted by RLacey

I wouldn't like being told off for performing the action, but if I knew that whether or not I was punished was entirely at the discretion of the teacher I probably wouldn't have performed the action. Equally, you might not get stopped by the police if you speed while driving, but that doesn't mean that you should do it in case you get away with it...

(grins slightly) We're boiling down to the core of things, I think.

You personally would not perform the action if you knew the teacher's discretion was uncertain. But wouldn't you rather *be* certain? Would you perhaps make a request that the teacher disclose why she did certain things? And maybe get upset if she refused to say? Especially if the kid who had seen the other kids doing the action with the teacher's acceptance, did it themselves, and got punished, was someone you considered a friend?

Yes, you can legitimately say the kid should have known better and gotten an assurance for themselves that the teacher wouldn't punish them. But I don't see any basic wrong in expecting people to treat you the same way you've seen them treat others.

As for the police analogy, in real life you know ahead of time with no question that speeding is illegal and if you're caught you'll be punished unless you can give a really good reason why you were speeding.

In this case it feels more like, as far as the "public" view I'm aware of knew up until now, the "police" were watching all the speeders go by all this time and not punishing people for it.

I'm not going to exempt fangame teams entirely. But I think Vivendi did drop the ball a bit here, at least if they don't want to piss off their fanbase.

I'd also like to say, just to set the record straight if anyone's wondering, that I am not against the idea of copyright in principle. But we've had that discussion in these forums before.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Jeysie]

I'm inclined to agree with Austin.

Legally it may be fine to buy a creative idea from the original creator and sit on it, not do anything with it, and refuse people who do want to do something with it.

But I don't find it moral. If you're going to buy an idea off someone, I think there's an implication that you intend to use the idea, or pass/sell it to someone who will use it. Sitting on a bought idea that isn't originally your own and refusing to let anyone benefit from it just seems greedy and pointless and a waste of people's previous expenditures of time and money.

And then there's the spin-off debate: If someone is sitting on a bought idea, refusing to use it, and refusing to let anyone else use it, is it morally right for someone else to take the matter into their own hands? As evidenced by the multiple stalemate debates on abandonware, that's not an easy issue to form a definitive consensus about.

In short, I agree. Vivendi may be upholding the letter of copyright law, but I do not think they are upholding the spirit of it.

This feels kind of like someone buying, say, a script to a play that the creator's troupes originally performed for the public. The new owner of the script then locks the play script in a trunk, refuses to appoint their own troupe to perform it, and stops any other troupe that decides to perform it. Legal? Yep. True to moral spirit? I fail to see how.

Peace & Luv, Liz