[QUOTE=esalaka;24565482]I realize that. Which is the reason I think it's not really that relevant :smile:[/QUOTE]
Eh, I suppose. Your first line made me think you didn't realize it, but seems not.
[QUOTE=esalaka;24565482]I realize that. Which is the reason I think it's not really that relevant :smile:[/QUOTE]
It's relevant because this DRM scheme is a bad idea.
Server-based access control (what Valve does) is in the gray area between "Digital Rights Management" and "Content Protection," but really it's to the same end.
Well, I'll continue working on this, if only so I have something to do, and thanks for the (semi) positive and mostly helpful comments/criticisms. I don't think I'll be releasing future versions until its really something I feel is professional quality.
And, geel9, that's not how copyright law works (thankfully). Copyright lawsuits that would apply to this type of thing are based on whether or not product A, my product, can be confused with product C, Wolfire's product, and if so, has there been damage done to Wolfire's brand name. It is hard to believe that anybody would confuse an (admittedly very shitty) open source C# project with anything of the magnitude and quality Wolfire would produce. Therefore, if Wolfire was that evil (which they aren't), they would have virtually no case.
[QUOTE=Phyxius;24581786]Well, I'll continue working on this, if only so I have something to do, and thanks for the (semi) positive and mostly helpful comments/criticisms. I don't think I'll be releasing future versions until its really something I feel is professional quality.
And, geel9, that's not how copyright law works (thankfully). Copyright lawsuits that would apply to this type of thing are based on whether or not product A, my product, can be confused with product C, Wolfire's product, and if so, has there been damage done to Wolfire's brand name. It is hard to believe that anybody would confuse an (admittedly very shitty) open source C# project with anything of the magnitude and quality Wolfire would produce. Therefore, if Wolfire was that evil (which they aren't), they would have virtually no case.[/QUOTE]
It's not so much copyright law, it's trademarking. They probably could sue you for it, and so it's better safe than sorry.
Also, if you are going to work on this? Don't do something so reversible. Look into public key cryptography or something.
[QUOTE=deloc;24557817]>implying facepunch is an imageboard[/QUOTE]
>implying that facepunch isn't an imageboard.
[QUOTE=zeekill;24588829]>implying that facepunch isn't an imageboard.[/QUOTE]
Facepunch isn't a imageboard.
[QUOTE=Baldr;24589278]Facepunch isn't a imageboard.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://ahb.me/n7D[/img]
[QUOTE=ShaRose;24583483]It's not so much copyright law, it's trademarking. They probably could sue you for it, and so it's better safe than sorry.
Also, if you are going to work on this? Don't do something so reversible. Look into public key cryptography or something.[/QUOTE]
Thanks, I will. And they can't trademark a common (ish) word like Phoenix. Trademarks are reserved for things that are completely unique to a single company, like if they spelled it Feenix. Also, they would still have to prove that I'm subtracting value from their brand, which I'm not, seeing as I went out and said that it was shitty from the start and therefore could not be confused with Wolfire's level of quality. (Not to mention the fact that the only people who would come across this would be people who are smart enough to see the difference between a badly written project and Wolfire's awesome games. (This is in the context of USA IP laws correct me if Wolfire is based in a country with different laws regarding this stuff)
[QUOTE=Phyxius;24623689]Thanks, I will. And they can't trademark a common (ish) word like Phoenix. Trademarks are reserved for things that are completely unique to a single company, like if they spelled it Feenix. Also, they would still have to prove that I'm subtracting value from their brand, which I'm not, seeing as I went out and said that it was shitty from the start and therefore could not be confused with Wolfire's level of quality. (Not to mention the fact that the only people who would come across this would be people who are smart enough to see the difference between a badly written project and Wolfire's awesome games. (This is in the context of USA IP laws correct me if Wolfire is based in a country with different laws regarding this stuff)[/QUOTE]
Facebook is attempting to trademark 'face'.
[QUOTE=ShaRose;24627972]Facebook is attempting to trademark 'face'.[/QUOTE]
nonono, their trying to TM book, they got into a lawsuit or something with a site called "Teacherbook"
[QUOTE=ShaRose;24627972]Facebook is attempting to trademark 'face'.[/QUOTE]
:ohdear: Is Facepunch in trouble?
[QUOTE=ROBO_DONUT;24629118]:ohdear: Is Facepunch in trouble?[/QUOTE]
I remember a comment on how Headpunch doesn't have as much of a ring to it.
[QUOTE=Fear_Fox;24627647]Seeing as Valve has both their name, Steam and Source trademarked I don't know why putting a trademark on the name Phoenix would be a problem.[/QUOTE]
[img]http://ahb.me/nF5[/img]
[url]http://anz.com.au[/url]
[QUOTE=turb_;24634430][img]http://ahb.me/nF5[/img]
[url]http://anz.com.au[/url][/QUOTE]
Next such TM will be "Visual webpages are trademark of someothershittycompany"...
[QUOTE=sim642;24639819]Next such TM will be "Visual webpages are trademark of someothershittycompany"...[/QUOTE]
"Everything that exists is a trademark of Unilever"
[url]http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS205687911520100828[/url]
It's already happening.
[quote]The '507 patent refers to a possible application in a "news browser" that could be used to "review news stories acquired during one day from several television news programs, as well as from text news sources." The '682 patent, meanwhile, describes technology for alerting users of Web content related to what they're currently viewing, or of others' activities that might interest them.[/quote]
[QUOTE=sim642;24639819]Next such TM will be "Visual webpages are trademark of someothershittycompany"...[/QUOTE]
This is actually quite possible. A trademark must be a VERY SPECIFIC symbol of your company. In the event of the Australian company up there, it is 3 shades of blue, each met at a specific angle, and each a specific hue. When describing your trademark, you usually have to go into ridiculous details like "Line A is in it's location because it represents the Battle of Trifalgar, and the number of lives lost is related to the length in the size of the line"
Obviously I'm exaggerating with the example.
So if someone were to create a very specific look for a webpage that they could prove was not in use for some form of business, or copyright, they could trademark that specific webpage. But if they were to ever change it's look, the trademark wouldn't carry over.
Plus, I would [i]hope[/i] that whichever non-US government that it was brought before would say NO. :P
This a thread about DRM and we talk about trademarks...
Trademarks are an interesting subject.
[QUOTE=sim642;24664579]This a thread about DRM and we talk about trademarks...[/QUOTE]
Trademarks and DRM are slightly related. I suppose.
DRM is only as secure as it is difficult to reverse-engineer. Obfuscated code, encrypted binaries, and auto-updates which change the nature of the encryption are some things most DRM schemes use to accomplish this.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
