Its not my intention to start a flame war, but source code and hard assets seem to infringe on the last bastion of ownership/pride for these creators.
Everyone in the industry I know, including people who worked at Nintendo and Apple, always love to see their old work spread as much as possible. It isn't a bastion of ownership because the company owns it, not them. Displaying and appreciating extends, not diminishes, the pride. Their creation is appreciated instead of erased.
Maybe there are some who would be upset, but we would need to hear from them directly.
Originally posted by: Guggles
In nearly all arguments for preservation, a source code dump is completely unnecessary.
Except to see all the things that never made it into the final version, like in this case.
The copyright on this expired long ago, releasing the source code and assets at this point wouldn't be illegal in any way.
the copyright is valid for at least another several decades. you shouldn't post things if you have no idea what you're talking about.
I was just basing it on bunnyboy mentioning something about him being able to create the AVS because that patent expired long ago. I simply applied it to this source code thinking it would also have expired.
Interesting read, but a source code and art asset dump? Can't say I agree with this . . .
I actually do understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. I understand the viewpoint of people being uncomfortable with this, and even if no one else cares at all and wants to see it spread like wildfire, it doesn't mean you don't have a reasonable viewpoint, because I think you do.
However, to re-iterate what I said earlier --- I don't think the source code and assets have actually been dumped and shared publicly? Meaning, yes the website put a few pieces of information and pictures and such out there (which by the way you helped share here ), but they didn't actually release the code, or what I imagine is 98% of the assets.
Patents are not copyrights are not trademarks. Each one has very different terms and restrictions. The copyright for that source code will be owned by someone for another century.
There's a difference between infringing on copyright by publishing someone else' work as your own, vs tinkering with it to gain a better understanding of how it was made.
I would be flattered if someone liked my work enough to get into it that deep, and even make their own transformative work inspired by it.
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
I dunno, if a developer/programmer wanted to release something like proprietary source code to the public there's nothing stopping them from doing so. Having that choice taken from them by someone else through theft or other means doesn't seem right, even if done in the name of "historical preservation".
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
The DOS version is available for sale right now on GOG, actually.
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
The DOS version is available for sale right now on GOG, actually.
Ok, that's cool, but the DOS version is an entirely different game from the Genesis version. Aladdin is also the rare example where the SNES game is also entirely different than the Sega version, since the SNES version was developed by Capcom, one of the last Disney games they worked on.
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
Honestly, just glancing at the article, anyone could have understood that this was a thorough analysis or the source code, not the code itself. Not only there's nothing wrong in doing this, but even if any creators would be pissed about this, it wouldn't make it a problem either (except at a personal level, but that's an entirely different question). As long as you can get your hand on archival information lawfully, you're free to analyze it and share the knowledge. That's true for video games, and for anything else that is culturally meaningful.
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
The DOS version is available for sale right now on GOG, actually.
Ok, that's cool, but the DOS version is an entirely different game from the Genesis version. Aladdin is also the rare example where the SNES game is also entirely different than the Sega version, since the SNES version was developed by Capcom, one of the last Disney games they worked on.
I'm offended that you're offended about other people being offended over you being offended that they don't get why you're offended and that you're further offended as they're offended by your being offended.
I think that covers it so far. This is a good thing and as a former creator of things in the past too much around that decade too. Things can end up lost and if you think they're gone forever, maybe they're not when someone finds an awesome lost nugget like this. Beyond that it's one hell of a learning experience too.
I suspect many of us have never created anything and then had it dumped like this, so I'd ask that you take a moment to reflect from their perspective. I have friends in this industry, and regardless if it was 5 months, 50 years, or 500 years ago, their work is still relevant to them. Its art, its their efforts, its their passion. Because someone had access to it and dumped it without reason or without permission, it still doesn't make it right under the veil of preservation or history.
Its not my intention to start a flame war, but source code and hard assets seem to infringe on the last bastion of ownership/pride for these creators. And yes, I truly believe there's a significant difference between source code and a work in progress prototype. In nearly all arguments for preservation, a source code dump is completely unnecessary. You should appreciate and preserve the art, not the screws or glue needed to build. It's also likely, a modern day game programmer wouldn't recreate the game based on how it was built. He'd have infinite options, could make it more efficient, and complete it in 1/3 of the time. So what's the point in releasing source code and diminishing the pride the developers had in keeping their secret sauce, secret?
I'm voicing my opinion on the matter and I'm OK if you disagree. I'd just appreciate it if you could take a moment to understand/respect this view from their perspective.
The creators of this game have no rights to the source code, it's not theirs. In this case, the programmer is David Perry, of Earth Worm Jim fame. Most likely, Perry is the source of the leak, and keep in mind, this "leak" happened many many years ago.
This was work-for-hire. The programmers have no more rights to the code than the janitors; the company you're working for owns said code, not the developer themselves. This is actually a big source of problems for some companies, the programmers get too attached to "their" code, and when someone changes it, even for the better, it causes ego problems and the like. If you're not maing the game yourself for your own enjoyment, it's most likely not really YOUR game.
Edit: Note I say "Most likely, Perry is the source of the leak", but I'm not implying it's an intentional leak. I work information security, when we say a person is the source of a leak, it doesn't mean it was an intentional breach. He might have been programming on a computer at his house one time, and then sold said computer to a friend for all we know. The 90s wern't exactly about information security.
" author’s life plus an additional 70 years. For a “joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter"
Do you happen to know what company owns the rights to it? With the licenses and ports and all that fun stuff, I figured it's one hell of a mess. I'd assume virgin had the rights to the actual game, but Deisney still has some say in it if they wanted to republish.
This was work-for-hire. The programmers have no more rights to the code than the janitors; the company you're working for owns said code, not the developer themselves.
Thank you. I was thinking about this as well, but didn't know how to say it.
Over on AtariAge, we were talking about Pac-Man for the 2600 and Tod Frye showed up and asked if anyone had a disassembly of the original code available because he was interested in looking it at again and his memory of work he had done decades ago was mostly gone. Luckily there were some members there to accommodate his request. Since we're going off anecdotal evidence from unrelated parties to extrapolate whether dumping the Aladdin source would be good or bad in the eyes of the people who originally worked on it, I guess this means its good? Just kidding. That's a strange way to reach a conclusion. Short of asking the people who made it... which I have no interest in doing, perhaps we can draw the line at preemptively getting upset on their behalf?
The only instance that really comes to mind is Alan Ofer and his Sonic Blast engine (aka Sonic X-treme on the PC). He refused to share and looked back on the whole ordeal bitterly. It was pure luck the engine is now out there thanks to tichua and jollyroger. I don't think we've ever heard how he feels about that since they were released, though.
Comments
Its not my intention to start a flame war, but source code and hard assets seem to infringe on the last bastion of ownership/pride for these creators.
Everyone in the industry I know, including people who worked at Nintendo and Apple, always love to see their old work spread as much as possible. It isn't a bastion of ownership because the company owns it, not them. Displaying and appreciating extends, not diminishes, the pride. Their creation is appreciated instead of erased.
Maybe there are some who would be upset, but we would need to hear from them directly.
In nearly all arguments for preservation, a source code dump is completely unnecessary.
Except to see all the things that never made it into the final version, like in this case.
The copyright on this expired long ago, releasing the source code and assets at this point wouldn't be illegal in any way.
the copyright is valid for at least another several decades. you shouldn't post things if you have no idea what you're talking about.
I was just basing it on bunnyboy mentioning something about him being able to create the AVS because that patent expired long ago. I simply applied it to this source code thinking it would also have expired.
Interesting read, but a source code and art asset dump? Can't say I agree with this . . .
I actually do understand where you are coming from and what you are saying. I understand the viewpoint of people being uncomfortable with this, and even if no one else cares at all and wants to see it spread like wildfire, it doesn't mean you don't have a reasonable viewpoint, because I think you do.
However, to re-iterate what I said earlier --- I don't think the source code and assets have actually been dumped and shared publicly? Meaning, yes the website put a few pieces of information and pictures and such out there (which by the way you helped share here ), but they didn't actually release the code, or what I imagine is 98% of the assets.
I do create things, for a living.
There's a difference between infringing on copyright by publishing someone else' work as your own, vs tinkering with it to gain a better understanding of how it was made.
I would be flattered if someone liked my work enough to get into it that deep, and even make their own transformative work inspired by it.
Ding ding ding give the man a balloon
Interesting read, but a source code and art asset dump? Can't say I agree with this . . .
https://gamehistory.org/aladdin-s...;
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
Interesting read, but a source code and art asset dump? Can't say I agree with this . . .
https://gamehistory.org/aladdin-source-code/ ;
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
Ooohhhhh snap!
That somehow the curtain has been pulled and your Oz like magic is now simply common lever pulling?;
I don't know about that. Movie people love showing how they did it. Look at the special features on any DVD with special effects.
"It is also often lawful to reverse-engineer an artifact or process as long as it is obtained legitimately. "
Interesting read, but a source code and art asset dump? Can't say I agree with this . . .
https://gamehistory.org/aladdin-source-code/ ;
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
Thank you for chiming in Frank.
We done here now...?
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
The DOS version is available for sale right now on GOG, actually.
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
The DOS version is available for sale right now on GOG, actually.
Ok, that's cool, but the DOS version is an entirely different game from the Genesis version. Aladdin is also the rare example where the SNES game is also entirely different than the Sega version, since the SNES version was developed by Capcom, one of the last Disney games they worked on.
Originally posted by: TheRedEye
Originally posted by: Guggles
Interesting read, but a source code and art asset dump? Can't say I agree with this . . .
https://gamehistory.org/aladdin-source-code/ ;
I don't agree with it either, which is why I didn't do it. We didn't release the source code and we're not going to, we analyzed it and published our results in a way that we carefully pored over to make sure was respectful to the original team. One of whom literally sits across from me at work.
Honestly, just glancing at the article, anyone could have understood that this was a thorough analysis or the source code, not the code itself. Not only there's nothing wrong in doing this, but even if any creators would be pissed about this, it wouldn't make it a problem either (except at a personal level, but that's an entirely different question). As long as you can get your hand on archival information lawfully, you're free to analyze it and share the knowledge. That's true for video games, and for anything else that is culturally meaningful.
Originally posted by: spman
Originally posted by: TheRedEye
Originally posted by: spman
It's a 25 year old game that no one is making money off anymore that can't be marketed by anyone without paying for an expensive from Disney, let it go.
The DOS version is available for sale right now on GOG, actually.
Ok, that's cool, but the DOS version is an entirely different game from the Genesis version. Aladdin is also the rare example where the SNES game is also entirely different than the Sega version, since the SNES version was developed by Capcom, one of the last Disney games they worked on.
No, the DOS version is a port of the Shiny game: https://www.gog.com/game/disney_aladdin
I think that covers it so far. This is a good thing and as a former creator of things in the past too much around that decade too. Things can end up lost and if you think they're gone forever, maybe they're not when someone finds an awesome lost nugget like this. Beyond that it's one hell of a learning experience too.
I suspect many of us have never created anything and then had it dumped like this, so I'd ask that you take a moment to reflect from their perspective. I have friends in this industry, and regardless if it was 5 months, 50 years, or 500 years ago, their work is still relevant to them. Its art, its their efforts, its their passion. Because someone had access to it and dumped it without reason or without permission, it still doesn't make it right under the veil of preservation or history.
Its not my intention to start a flame war, but source code and hard assets seem to infringe on the last bastion of ownership/pride for these creators. And yes, I truly believe there's a significant difference between source code and a work in progress prototype. In nearly all arguments for preservation, a source code dump is completely unnecessary. You should appreciate and preserve the art, not the screws or glue needed to build. It's also likely, a modern day game programmer wouldn't recreate the game based on how it was built. He'd have infinite options, could make it more efficient, and complete it in 1/3 of the time. So what's the point in releasing source code and diminishing the pride the developers had in keeping their secret sauce, secret?
I'm voicing my opinion on the matter and I'm OK if you disagree. I'd just appreciate it if you could take a moment to understand/respect this view from their perspective.
The creators of this game have no rights to the source code, it's not theirs. In this case, the programmer is David Perry, of Earth Worm Jim fame. Most likely, Perry is the source of the leak, and keep in mind, this "leak" happened many many years ago.
This was work-for-hire. The programmers have no more rights to the code than the janitors; the company you're working for owns said code, not the developer themselves. This is actually a big source of problems for some companies, the programmers get too attached to "their" code, and when someone changes it, even for the better, it causes ego problems and the like. If you're not maing the game yourself for your own enjoyment, it's most likely not really YOUR game.
Edit: Note I say "Most likely, Perry is the source of the leak", but I'm not implying it's an intentional leak. I work information security, when we say a person is the source of a leak, it doesn't mean it was an intentional breach. He might have been programming on a computer at his house one time, and then sold said computer to a friend for all we know. The 90s wern't exactly about information security.
Does the code ever enter the Public Domain? What is the time frame on Copywrite?
https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ15a.pdf
" author’s life plus an additional 70 years. For a “joint work prepared by two or more authors who did not work for hire,” the term lasts for 70 years after the last surviving author’s death. For works made for hire and anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter"
No, the DOS version is a port of the Shiny game: https://www.gog.com/game/disney_a...
Do you happen to know what company owns the rights to it? With the licenses and ports and all that fun stuff, I figured it's one hell of a mess. I'd assume virgin had the rights to the actual game, but Deisney still has some say in it if they wanted to republish.
This was work-for-hire. The programmers have no more rights to the code than the janitors; the company you're working for owns said code, not the developer themselves.