06-18-2017, 06:21 PM
Software 'ownership' has always been a grey bit of legal nonsense.
Yes, you own the disc, but not what's on it. I mean it's like you music. If you edited an album and redistributed it (even if the person had to own the original album to listen to it) you can bet some legal trouble will rumble your way.
I think it's very 'odd' how people assume they have the right to mod games, like it's some god given right, when really - I can fully understand companies not wanting it to be done. Normally when the hammer comes down on these cases it's because somewhere in the mod, intentional or not, puts the original software at risk from some, possibly amazingly obscure, exploit.
But, but even if the person is in the right and, by law, they are in there rights to mod away - it doesn't matter because they won't be able to afford the fight to prove so.
If a company releases the source code and says 'have at it' then go for it, mod until you can mod no more, otherwise - I think a legal challenge somewhere down the line is inevitable and those involved should understand that.
I mean, look at the NES Mini, thanks to Linux being open source (or something) Nintendo had to give a fair bit of info out on how it worked - which was exploited in days.
Now, modding the NES Mini itself, isn't illegal - but it is 99% going to be used to put illegal ROMs on.
So if Nintendo started trying to (somehow) crack down on people modding the NES mini - they have every right to do so.
I'm not saying it's 'fair' or 'right' I'm saying - that's how it is and it makes sense that's how it is.
And some cases, it's a simple default copyright claim. I mean was Pokemon Nuclear edition going to hurt future Pokemon sales? No, no it wasn't. But if Nintendo isn't seen to be protecting it's IPs it causes legal issues down the line.
That's why Velcro is so aggressive on everything else being called 'clothe and hook' or something else as long as it's not Velcro.
And finally, a modded GTA V, could, potentionly, lead to those people not buying GTA VI - so again, a valid reason of protecting there best interest.
Yes, you own the disc, but not what's on it. I mean it's like you music. If you edited an album and redistributed it (even if the person had to own the original album to listen to it) you can bet some legal trouble will rumble your way.
I think it's very 'odd' how people assume they have the right to mod games, like it's some god given right, when really - I can fully understand companies not wanting it to be done. Normally when the hammer comes down on these cases it's because somewhere in the mod, intentional or not, puts the original software at risk from some, possibly amazingly obscure, exploit.
But, but even if the person is in the right and, by law, they are in there rights to mod away - it doesn't matter because they won't be able to afford the fight to prove so.
If a company releases the source code and says 'have at it' then go for it, mod until you can mod no more, otherwise - I think a legal challenge somewhere down the line is inevitable and those involved should understand that.
I mean, look at the NES Mini, thanks to Linux being open source (or something) Nintendo had to give a fair bit of info out on how it worked - which was exploited in days.
Now, modding the NES Mini itself, isn't illegal - but it is 99% going to be used to put illegal ROMs on.
So if Nintendo started trying to (somehow) crack down on people modding the NES mini - they have every right to do so.
I'm not saying it's 'fair' or 'right' I'm saying - that's how it is and it makes sense that's how it is.
And some cases, it's a simple default copyright claim. I mean was Pokemon Nuclear edition going to hurt future Pokemon sales? No, no it wasn't. But if Nintendo isn't seen to be protecting it's IPs it causes legal issues down the line.
That's why Velcro is so aggressive on everything else being called 'clothe and hook' or something else as long as it's not Velcro.
And finally, a modded GTA V, could, potentionly, lead to those people not buying GTA VI - so again, a valid reason of protecting there best interest.