Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Other talk that doesn't fit elsewhere.
This is for General Discussion, not General chat.
User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Buginator » 20 May 2008, 07:34

First off, this isn't meant to bash anyone in anyway.  I *hope* it can be made into a sticky, since this keeps coming up again & again.

The short of the matter is that this project is trying 100% to respect the original authors remarks.  For those that do NOT know, here it is, in its full glory:
Warzone 2100 Source & Data

1) These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees.
2) No assistance or support will be offered or given.
3) Everything you will require to make a build of the game should be here. If it isn't, you'll have to improvise(*).
4) None of us here at Pivotal Games are in a position to be able to offer any help with making this work.
5) This source code is released under the terms of the GNU Public License.
Please be sure to read the entirety of this license but the summary is that you're free to do what you want
with the source subject to making the full source code freely available in the event of the distribution
of new binaries.

Finally, the primary motivation for this release is for entertainment and educational purposes. On the subject of the
latter, don't be surprised to see some pretty gnarly old-school C code in here; the game was a classic but
large areas of the code aren't pretty; OO design and C++ evangelists beware!  We haven't spent any time
cleaning the code or making if pretty - what you see is what you're getting, warts n' all.

Thankyou to Jonathan Kemp of Eidos Europe for permitting the release.  Thanks also to Frank Lamboy for
assistance with the release and for campaigning along with many many others over the years for the source to be made
available. The correspondence, online petitions and persistence made this possible. We were constantly amazed at the
community support for Warzone even after all this time; it's nice to be able to give something back,
assuming you can get it to compile...;-)

6th December 2004
Alex M - ex Pumpkin Studios (Eidos)

(*) Except FMV and music...
Now that I assume people can read, THAT is the problem.
It isn't that this group doesn't want the FMVs, it is just that they have to follow what the GPL gurus have said.  They want the game to be available to ALL, so they MUST play by the rules!

There have been many attempts by many people trying to get the FMVs & music liberated as well.

To this day, NOBODY has gotten ANY response for that to happen, and no matter what has been said, unless 'official' word, (and in this case, that would seem to be from the author of the above document, Alex M), is made, there is NOTHING this project can do concerning said FMVs & music.

We ALL know that the FMVs are a huge part of the SP game, and without them, the SP game suffers for it greatly.
Unless someone steps up and makes new videos, it doesn't look like that aspect will change officially.  That means that this project & host can't distribute said videos without breaking the rules.  Get over it, it just will never happen without official consent.

What? You can get the videos from blahblah.com ?  Great.  Technically, they are breaking the law.  Will anything happen to them? Doubtful, but you never know.  Can you post a link to said site?  Nope.  That is against the rules of the forums.  Remember, he wants to keep this site 100% legit.

What? Why was the code ripped out in the first place?
Well, it was only partially removed.  Since the codec & .dlls only worked on windows, it really didn't make sense to keep them around with some platform specfic conditional statements.
While I/we  may not agree with that original decision, that was the decision made by the original people who worked on the code, and this forum wasn't around at that time.


That leaves us with the improvise remark.
If you own the original, and have access to the FMVs & music, *you* CAN convert them to a format that this codebase will use to play the FMVs, and the music.  The current codebase does *NOT* have FMV support yet, there is a patch in the tracker than enables this.  Then the user must transcode the original FMVs into one that uses the theora codec.  The music must be converted to ogg format.  Yeah, you have to know how to compile the code yourself.
What?  You want a utility to do that for you?  While there is such a utility, the legal mumbo jumbo involved in the matter makes said utility a no-show on this forum, or the projects webspace.
What? You want to host?  Great!  Now just have a legal retainer available to the author of said utility.  You don't have $50,000? Well, then read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_ ... ement  What?  What does that have to do with this?  I am not a lawyer, don't look at me.  Just ask the one that is on retainer, I am sure they will explain it all.
What? Your from a country that laughs at all this copyright concept?  That is nice, it won't change anything.
What? You don't care about any of this, just give you the FMVs?  What do I look like, Long John Silver? RedBeard?  It is NOT going to happen.  That is the end of story.  Don't bother PMing anyone about this either, it will fall on deaf ears.
What?  Why bring it up?  Just trying to clear the air of everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.
What? What do you mean I am full of it, and you are going over to RedBeard's forums from now on?  All I can say is ... meh.  :P
I hope that covers everything anyone has ever mentioned in all previous FMV threads.  :)

Now lets get some new FMV replacements!  8)


If you reply to this, **PLEASE** keep in mind of all the rules in the forums, and that it is NOT the fault of this web master (Kamaze) or the projects devs that the FMVs & music were not liberated along with the source code.  Go back and read the original document.


Thanks for understanding.  :)


FMV's coming soon*

*thanks to jaywalker_eidos for all the hard work he has done to make this happen.
Last edited by DevUrandom on 14 Jun 2008, 16:25, edited 2 times in total.
Reason: Note about upcomming videos, as requested by Buginator
and it ends here.

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Rman Virgil » 20 May 2008, 09:05

------->

* One small clarification.

* The Legal-Doc-Clarification sought here on the FMV & Music Data Files can ONLY be provided SCi-Eidos Legal Dept.

* It CANNOT be provided by Alex or anyone at Pivotal. That's a fact.

* If Eidos Legal Dept was flooded with thousands of emails on this matter could be they would act. Up to know they've been completely unresponsive to requests or pointers in the direction of sites that have carried these files for years. That's a fact too.

* So yes this Project is bound.

* But like I said... if ALL you folks out there wanna do something positive then email Eidos Legal Dept about providing said legal document clarification. Even a few hundred emails might do the trick.

- Regards, Rman aka Frank L.
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.

themousemaster
Regular
Regular
Posts: 608
Joined: 10 Nov 2006, 16:54

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by themousemaster » 20 May 2008, 14:04

Alright, Alright, I get the picture, my latest thread was unwanted ;p.

Let me go off on this spin, however...



Let me pretend I was the Eidos Legal Department, and I was receiving letters regarding this stuff.  If I were them, I wouldn't respond either.

Why?

Nothing to gain, and unless I spend the time to properly word the official release document, I might be setting myself up for a legal problem later.




So instead of just flooding Eidos with requests, why not sweeten the deal from their end?

Do you think they'd be more responsive if the people actively coding this game were to ask them for the video/musics, but were willing to do something in return?  Say, make the Edios logo more prominent in the game (like, the loading and menu screens)?  Perhaps throw Eidos's website somewhere into things?  Or can someone come up with some other creative way to not alter the gameplay, but give credit to, or enough recognition of, Eidos to make them actually WANT to do it, instead of just "doing it"?

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Rman Virgil » 20 May 2008, 14:32

themousemaster wrote:

Let me pretend I was the Eidos Legal Department, and I was receiving letters regarding this stuff.  If I were them, I wouldn't respond either.

Why?

Nothing to gain, and unless I spend the time to properly word the official release document, I might be setting myself up for a legal problem later.
* I too believe that is exactly what is happening. It is asking someone to champion the cause - and possibly stick thier neck out doing so too.


So instead of just flooding Eidos with requests, why not sweeten the deal from their end?

Do you think they'd be more responsive if the people actively coding this game were to ask them for the video/musics, but were willing to do something in return?  Say, make the Edios logo more prominent in the game (like, the loading and menu screens)?  Perhaps throw Eidos's website somewhere into things?  Or can someone come up with some other creative way to not alter the gameplay, but give credit to, or enough recognition of, Eidos to make them actually WANT to do it, instead of just "doing it"?

* Tit for tat. Something to actually gain from the effort. Motivation. Good one, sir. :)

* Best get to it soon though because there just might be another major  corporate *UPHEAVAL* in the wings. SCi is strapped for cash and * Ubisoft * has been making bids for a buy-in / take-over.... If that happens there will be a scramble and peeps will majorly be concerned about holding on to their jobs. There's always consolidation in a merger with a set of folks becoming superfluous in the process.

- RV :)

BTW: Data is data. The FMVs and Music are NOT the only "Data" not strictly covered by the licence's specific wording. So you tell me what's the real dif ? Some data is more acceptable to distro than other data even though none is really covered ? The only thing covered in all honesty is the "source code"... That case could easily be made by a third rate attorney in court.
Last edited by Rman Virgil on 20 May 2008, 15:00, edited 1 time in total.
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.

Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Chojun » 20 May 2008, 17:44

A few points:

One of the major problems with securing a future release of the music or FMVs is that Jonathan Kemp (a regional manager for Europe, if I remember correctly) sat on Eidos' board of directors.  The board of directors quit en-masse after the source release, in early 2005 (again, if I remember dates correctly).

Essentially, all people originally connected to the game (either through Pumpkin or Eidos) can no longer legally speak for it.
themousemaster wrote:Nothing to gain, and unless I spend the time to properly word the official release document, I might be setting myself up for a legal problem later.
This would only be the case if they made agreements with groups who provided "incidentals" for the FMVs, as well as the voice actors, which were contracted from an outside media agency, Franklin Media; OR if Eidos were entertaininig the possibility of making a sequel or otherwise continuing the Warzone franchise (more on this below).
themousemaster wrote:Do you think they'd be more responsive if the people actively coding this game were to ask them for the video/musics, but were willing to do something in return?  Say, make the Edios logo more prominent in the game (like, the loading and menu screens)?  Perhaps throw Eidos's website somewhere into things?  Or can someone come up with some other creative way to not alter the gameplay, but give credit to, or enough recognition of, Eidos to make them actually WANT to do it, instead of just "doing it"?
This, or any other Warzone project (or even all WZ communities everywhere combined) doesn't see nearly enough volume for that to be of any concern or benefit to them, so I highly doubt they'd consider that based on the merit of receiving more publicity.  Besides -- Eidos wouldn't stand to benefit any from the increased visibility since they are now merely a publishing subsidiary for another Software group (SCi).  Their role is much less now than it has ever been.  In fact, I'm certain they were acquired by SCi primarily for their publishing market share, since holding companies are like banks -- they like to own pieces of paper and (in the case of corporations) control the management of their subsidiaries.  Anyway..
Rman Virgil wrote:* Best get to it soon though because there just might be another major  corporate *UPHEAVAL* in the wings. SCi is strapped for cash and * Ubisoft * has been making bids for a buy-in / take-over....
If that happens, I bet Ubisoft would merely retain Eidos as a publisher, and it would likely make no difference to Warzone, either present or future.  Unless, of course, they have their own publisher and they disband (or sell) Eidos.
Rman Virgil wrote:BTW: Data is data. The FMVs and Music are NOT the only "Data" not strictly covered by the licence's specific wording. So you tell me what's the real dif ? Some data is more acceptable to distro than other data even though none is really covered ? The only thing covered in all honesty is the "source code"... That case could easily be made by a third rate attorney in court.
This is an excellent, critical point.  Because of the specific wording of the GPL license, it is only suitable for covering the conventional game source.  The GPL is not appropriate for anything other than source code because there is no ambiguity in the term "source code".  Anyway, the issue with the data is an interesting one.  There is no mention of any license for the game's data.  Since the data cannot be GPL, the data is either public domain or it is still unlicensed and proprietary to Pumpkin/Eidos.  Since there is no idication of the former, I tend to assume the latter.  This is where things get interesting.  Call it strategic -- or call it a simple oversight.

Eidos still owns the copyright to the game and can ultimately control what we do with it (that is, how and where we use their copyrights and trademarks).  The provisions of the GPL, however, allow us unrestricted access and use to the source code so long as we abide by its terms, so the original copyright holders cannot revoke that license.

Say, however, that Warzone were to become popular.  Popular enough that it could make money, or otherwise compete with Eidos' or its parent company's interests.  In that case, Eidos (or its holding co.) would be in a position to revoke or otherwise enforce ownership of the game's data, which would place all development projects, hosts, and linux distros that offer the files immediately at-risk.  Warzone development communities that rely on the data would go down in flames and it would be an embarassment to the various outlets that host the files.

So the question of FMVs, music, and the data is one and the same.  None of these things were licensed to anyone.  However, the game data ("Except FMV and music") happened to be included with the source release.  Personally I don't see how the FMVs that WERE included with the data differs at all with those that weren't.  The only apparent difference is size (which leads us back to the original discussion as to why they weren't uploaded to the FTP server).

As far as I'm concerned, data and FMVs/Music is all the same issue, and as RV has said, any 3rd-rate Lawyer can argue that in court.  So, is the lack of licensing of the data being conveniently overlooked?  As any Lawyer would explain, the details included in a license/agreement is every bit as important as the details that are withheld.  How convenient that the data is not explicitly licensed.  IMO, the devil is in the details.
The best thing to do when your philosophies don't stand up to debate is to lock the thread and claim victory.

Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3777
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Per » 20 May 2008, 18:28

I'm not sure what good comes from arguing about this, but Chojun, your argument that the GPL cannot be used for data is simply wrong. It can and has been used for a number of different non-source code things, from hardware board circuit plans to music and graphics. I have talked to lawyers about this. You can also check the FSF's own FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... anSoftware

As concerns the released data, we have spelled out our position in the COPYING.README file that is included in the distribution.
"Make a man a fire, you keep him warm for a day. Set a man on fire, you keep him warm for the rest of his life."

User avatar
Rman Virgil
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3812
Joined: 25 Sep 2006, 01:06
Location: USA

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Rman Virgil » 20 May 2008, 19:02

--------------------->

* I find it a good excercise in critical thinking.

* So much time has passed that it's unlikely anyone here now knows that upon the original release of WZ 2100 in April 1999 there was a very vocal contingent of fans in Pumpkin's own BBs who expressed a strong disaffection with the Campaign FMVs as Mission Briefs. There were a handful of reasons that kept coming up over and over... but I won't get into that here. What I will say is that I was one of those folks and in my first play-thru of the Campaign I found the FMVs so annoying and deficient that I stopped paying them any mind after the first 4 missions and happily played the rest of the Campaign missions blind. So even though I don't care for em and never did I still approach this objectively because many do prefer them and having spent a dozen years in the legal profession (multi-million dollar litigation, class action suites mostly with some IP cases in the mix) I find these issues inherently very interesting.

- RV :)
.

Impact = C x (R + E + A + T + E)

Contrast
Reach
Exposure
Articulation
Trust
Echo
.

User avatar
Buginator
Professional
Professional
Posts: 3285
Joined: 04 Nov 2007, 02:20

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Buginator » 20 May 2008, 19:07

About the game data vs FMV. 
From reading the ML, it was said that the game data can be implied to have the same license.
The exception of course is the FMVs, which is specifically excluded (the ones they DIDN'T include in the archive that is).
Rman Virgil wrote: ------->
* One small clarification.
* The Legal-Doc-Clarification sought here on the FMV & Music Data Files can ONLY be provided SCi-Eidos Legal Dept.
* It CANNOT be provided by Alex or anyone at Pivotal. That's a fact.
* If Eidos Legal Dept was flooded with thousands of emails on this matter could be they would act. Up to know they've been completely unresponsive to requests or pointers in the direction of sites that have carried these files for years. That's a fact too.
Rman, since we see no official documentation from Eidos, and only from Alex M., why would that be the case?
AFAIK, we only have Alex M.'s word that Eidos agreed to this?

* But like I said... if ALL you folks out there wanna do something positive then email Eidos Legal Dept about providing said legal document clarification. Even a few hundred emails might do the trick.

- Regards, Rman aka Frank L.
FSF & Eidos Europe have been contacted, and I believe that only FSF responded.

Do I smell another petition coming ?  It worked the first time, so why not again?  This time, it needs to be spread to all the gaming sites, so we know that 'official' people from Eidos/Sci are reading the same also.
Then, *finally* we can put this issue to rest.
and it ends here.

User avatar
DevUrandom
Regular
Regular
Posts: 1690
Joined: 31 Jul 2006, 23:14

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by DevUrandom » 20 May 2008, 20:52

Rman Virgil wrote: * If Eidos Legal Dept was flooded with thousands of emails on this matter could be they would act.
I am unsure whether this is a good idea. Power of the masses vs. annoyance.
I've heard arguments (people from the community and people from the company) about such things in other places outside of Warzone, and at least some where specifically saying that this would not help, only appear as unfriendly spam, and surely would only make their administrators reconfigure the spamfilters...
Rman Virgil wrote: BTW: Data is data. The FMVs and Music are NOT the only "Data" not strictly covered by the licence's specific wording. So you tell me what's the real dif ? Some data is more acceptable to distro than other data even though none is really covered ? The only thing covered in all honesty is the "source code"... That case could easily be made by a third rate attorney in court.
I, myself, would not be so quick in deciding which lawyer would rule an argument about this...
Our point is that the data (non-video, non-music) was included with the sourcecode, while the movies and music was not.
Further the GPL, if I recall correctly, demands that the program/sourcecode must be delivered in a way you can actually run it without restrictions. That would not be met if the data was not available to us. (You could argue that the movies are not strictly necessary to run the game, and thus did not need to be included.)
Chojun wrote: Personally I don't see how the FMVs that WERE included with the data differs at all with those that weren't.
If I am not mistaken we removed those that were included as well. Feel free to prove me wrong. ;)
Chojun wrote: IMO, the devil is in the details.
Couldn't spell it differently.
Though this was, like per said, worded in the COPYING.README by us.
Per wrote: I'm not sure what good comes from arguing about this, but Chojun, your argument that the GPL cannot be used for data is simply wrong. It can and has been used for a number of different non-source code things, from hardware board circuit plans to music and graphics.
I assume Chojun was talking about this specific case and readme, but forgot to make that clear.
I thin when he said "source code", he was pointing to the exact wording of the abovementioned readme.
Buginator wrote: Rman, since we see no official documentation from Eidos, and only from Alex M., why would that be the case?
AFAIK, we only have Alex M.'s word that Eidos agreed to this?
Hehe, we arrived at "what if" scenarios.
I think he'd be the only one who'd be screwed, we would just need to stop using our rights under the GPL that were wrongly given to us.
And what if "Alex M" is not really Alex M? What if someone else just faked this? ... ;)
Buginator wrote: FSF & Eidos Europe have been contacted, and I believe that only FSF responded.
Pumpkin has been contacted on this again, as Rman&Co were recently informed by Per.
Response was, if I am not mistaken, that Eidos is contacted over the matter, though it could take a while.


Own note:
I dont think discussing this over and over again will bring any new insights...
Topic was about movies, and not generic-data, too.

Though if we could work together in this, it would of course be nice, and maybe we could come to some common way to proceed...
Maybe together we could in the end get a small "yes" or "no" (which we all would not like...) on the data being GPL (as we assume) or it being nothing (as you assume).

Or we could just continue with our assumptions and let each other live on in peace... ;)

Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Chojun » 20 May 2008, 22:09

I want to make it clear that I believe Buginator had good intentions for this thread so I will keep things civil (but that is not to gurantee that things will not get a little heated..  ::) )
Per wrote:your argument that the GPL cannot be used for data is simply wrong. It can and has been used for a number of different non-source code things, from hardware board circuit plans to music and graphics.
That may very well be the case.  However, barring any informed legal decisions on the matter, licensing anything other than traditional, conventional source code under the GPL is a misinformed decision and can place the licensor at tremendous amounts of risk.  The official release doc makes no indication what constitutes "source code" in the data and it therefore cannot properly be covered by the GPL!
I have talked to lawyers about this.
So, did they mention any legal precedent set where the GPL went to trial and was found to be enforceable when the term "source code" is ambiguous?  I'm morbidly curious because that would determine if any project is at-risk by using the Data.

"Good faith" doesn't apply here, either, because our interpretation of the release conditions may be entirely different than Eidos's.
Rman Virgil wrote: --------------------->

* I find it a good excercise in critical thinking.

[...] I still approach this objectively because many do prefer them and having spent a dozen years in the legal profession (multi-million dollar litigation, class action suites mostly with some IP cases in the mix) I find these issues inherently very interesting.
Me, too (although the FMVs are really what got me into the game).  Especially since the prospect of me starting a software company with friend and brother-in-law is over the horizon, and we'd likely use some GPL software (in embedded systems).  I am keenly interested in all the legal ins-and-outs associated with the GPL.
Buginator wrote: About the game data vs FMV. 
From reading the ML, it was said that the game data can be implied to have the same license.
The exception of course is the FMVs, which is specifically excluded (the ones they DIDN'T include in the archive that is).
Yes, it can be implied under "good faith."  However, what I said above, and what I've been trying to say all along, is that good faith doesn't matter one single little bit.  Eidos could've intentially left the verbage vague so that in the event Warzone becomes competitive again, they can wrestle control over it.  Sure, we'd still have the source code, but that's all we'd have.  I'm not a conspiracy-theorist or pessimist by any means, but you guys around here seem to be really uptight about licensing, copyrights, etc, so you HAVE to consider that contingency.  Either you follow ALL of the rules or you follow none of them at all.
Rman, since we see no official documentation from Eidos, and only from Alex M., why would that be the case?
AFAIK, we only have Alex M.'s word that Eidos agreed to this?
That is correct, although I think we should have absolutely no reason to distrust Mr. McLean.  I think Mr. Kemp at Eidos probably said something to the effect of "Release it under the GPL so it won't get in our way.  State that it is for Entertainment/Educational purposes only, and remove all PSX-related stuff."  As I mentioned in my last post, all of the 1st Generation Warzone people have evaporated and are gone from the scene.  There has been a complete changing-of-the-guard since the source code was released.  Because of this, no-one who was originally involved with Warzone can legally speak for it.  It is a true testament to Pumpkin's love for Warzone that we even have the source code, because now in the ranks of Eidos/SCi you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that cares a single little bit about it, or even really knows what it is all about.

And before I forget:  All the more reason why the FMV issue is moot is because after the source release, I BELIEVE it was Alex Lee that sent us one of the FMVs that was missing from the discs.  It was a video that showed a viper tank being manufactured at the factory.  If there was any legal issue surrounding the FMVs, he would NEVER have done that.
DevUrandom wrote: Further the GPL, if I recall correctly, demands that the program/sourcecode must be delivered in a way you can actually run it without restrictions. That would not be met if the data was not available to us.
The GPL does not allow additional restrictions to be attached to the license without the original licensor's approval.  We're talking about legal and licensing restrictions here.  The GPL disclaims warranty and disclaims fitness for any particular purpose.  So, in other words, Pumpkin could've released the Ivis02 library and nothing else, and it would be fine under the GPL (although completely useless).  You can GPL a program that refuses to compile with 2.5 Billion errors, and the license would hold.  However, if you were to attach a license stipulation to a source distribution to the effect of "you may not run this program on sundays if it is 15 degrees outside, clear skies, and a full moon", then you'd be breaking the GPL.
If I am not mistaken we removed those that were included as well. Feel free to prove me wrong. ;)
Noted; however, this is only the most logical step if the program won't play those videos anyway.
I assume Chojun was talking about this specific case and readme, but forgot to make that clear.
I thin when he said "source code", he was pointing to the exact wording of the abovementioned readme.
Yes, thanks  :D  The wording is critical because it is the only clue that we have as to the intentions of Eidos.  Ultimately, their intentions are unclear.  By removing the FMVs and any support for them, you are assuming that Eidos' intent is to sue if copyrights are violated.  Under the same assumption, then, you must also cease including the data.  Simple.
Topic was about movies, and not generic-data, too.
The data is also covered under the same lack of an explicit license as are the FMVs and music, so the issue must be raised and discussed.
Though if we could work together in this, it would of course be nice, and maybe we could come to some common way to proceed...
I'm all for collaboration.  Collaboration is always the best result of combined effort.  However, I don't want to succumb to idealism, because frankly, issues like these are the prime reasons why I never joined with the main development projects.
Or we could just continue with our assumptions and let each other live on in peace... ;)
That is, until the next FMV thread/question is raised  ;)  :D
The best thing to do when your philosophies don't stand up to debate is to lock the thread and claim victory.

jaywalker_eidos
Trained
Trained
Posts: 41
Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 10:39

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by jaywalker_eidos » 05 Jun 2008, 14:06

Hey all

I worked on the original title, and am currently sitting within the office here at Wimbledon.

Who last contacted who about this?

Per
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Warzone 2100 Team Member
Posts: 3777
Joined: 03 Aug 2006, 19:39

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Per » 05 Jun 2008, 16:09

It is good to see someone from the original team around. I sent you an email with what I know. Thanks a lot for your interest.

Out of curiosity, what parts of the original game did you work on?

jaywalker_eidos
Trained
Trained
Posts: 41
Joined: 05 Jun 2008, 10:39

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by jaywalker_eidos » 05 Jun 2008, 16:35

Per wrote:It is good to see someone from the original team around. I sent you an email with what I know. Thanks a lot for your interest.

Out of curiosity, what parts of the original game did you work on?
Was original lead tester from Eidos. i looked after the PC/PS1 versions. Tis still one of my favourite games to date. That and Praetorians :)

ouch
Trained
Trained
Posts: 122
Joined: 13 Nov 2007, 02:01

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by ouch » 05 Jun 2008, 19:26

It specificly said FMV in the original doc. FMV is just a format, to me this means the actual images contained in the format should be ok to use. not to mention the images just contain rehashes of of the ingame models, so why wouldn't they release them? It doesn't make any sense.

I mean come on, even if they do decide to make a sequal, it's not like they are going to use the same 9 year old vids...

the only logical reason why they wouldn't let us use them is that there is some legal issues reguarding the format itself. If we remove that formating I don't see where any party could have a problem...

Chojun
Regular
Regular
Posts: 518
Joined: 25 Nov 2006, 17:49
Contact:

Re: Everything you wanted to know about Warzone's FMVs.

Post by Chojun » 05 Jun 2008, 21:06

The RPL format is proprietary.

However, the company responsible for it, Eidos Technologies, went defunct in 2000. This is speaking of the codec, not the video content, which is owned by Eidos, PLC.

Jay could probably explain this better than I but this is what my investigations have turned up.

Post Reply