Only MY intellectual property counts..
A view from the glass house
Wednesday, December 29, 2004 by Frogboy | Discussion: Skinning
I've been observating (and participating) in some interesting..ahem..discussions with regards to Adam's article on using SkinStudio to import .msstyles files as WindowBlinds skins.
Some intersting "outrage" at the thought that some user, in the privacy of their own home, might run a skin that was originally in .msstyles format in WindowBlinds. That this was, somehow, a violation of the rights of the skinner.
Let's be clear: No one is suggesting that someone should be able to import in a .msstyles skin and then start being able to upload it around. You still need permission. The rights of the skin author should still be respected.
But we also have to have some perspective as well. .msstyles is MICROSOFT'S FORMAT. It's a format that NO ONE has legally licensed to make use of. And it gets worse - every single .msstyles on the net is a derivative of the Luna.msstyles. People either reshack luna.msstyles (or an existing derivative of it) to change the bitmaps and data in it or they use a $20 editor that is available that reshacks luna.msstyles with a prettier interface.
The reason WinCustomize currently does not have a .msstyles section is because of that issue: Can we condone the distribution of what is borderline pirated files? It's the same reason why we don't include Boot screens that are patched files of the NT kernal (we only support .bootskin and had to write a freeware program just so that we could have boot screens here). You can't just patch someone else's copyrighted stuff and pass it around. Believe me, I would love to have a .msstyles section here from a purely capitalistic point of view and if someone can rationalize it for me to have a section for them, go for it - I'm ready to believe. But like I said, we're talking pretty gray market stuff.
But let's get back - so then the people who object to the idea that WindowBlinds would somehow profit from the ability to make use of .msstyles. This is apparently somehow different than the commercial programs that have existed for the past 3 years that make use of .msstyles by patching uxtheme.dll.
And anyone who claims that hacking your system files to use .msstyles should explain to others why the main sites that promote patching uxtheme.dll do not have forums. Even the main NON-FREE developer of a uxtheme patching program removed their forums. The most popular .msstyles distribution site has no forums. Could it possibly be that it's because of the technical disasters it causes? I don't know. What I do know is how much tech support WE get from people who messed around with their files and blew away their default visual style or had problems when they applied a service pack or something else. In my opinion, anyone trying to claim that patching your system files (either in RAM or on disk) is "safe" is not telling the whole story.
Puttin that aside - there are already programs making a profit from .msstyles and have been for years. Where's the outrage? But because the handful of original msstyles floating around the net might be able to be added to the 3000+ existing WindowBlinds skins Stardock is the greedy one? Please.
Regardless of the format, the rights of skin authors need to be respected. They are artists. As the #6 most downloaded skin author on this site, I know something of the work that goes into skinning. But I also know where my rights end. When someone downloads my skin onto their own computer, my rights end. What they do with it on their own computer is their business. People have been downloading and modifying skins for their own use since day 1. And of all formats, .msstyles authors happen to be using a format that requires them to be using someone else's stuff without their permission in the first place.
 |
|
Page 2 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #22 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:07 AM
WC dont allow unauthorized ports. so even if a few do use it to make one .. they wont be allowed here
ok so its your opinion...true i left custo.org a long time ago because of the abuseive attitudes and the "If it aint minimal, it sux" attitudes. i had been recently talked in to returning to custo.org...but after the bashing i saw..
Reply #23 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:22 AM
| Using other people's work in way they did not intend to move more product is slimey. My opinion. |
and how do you know his motivation??? brad and crew have been around a hella long time and have devoted mass time and effort to all the skinning community .. even its competitors. and ive yet to see brad start charging for all the extras he provided over the years ...the stardock staff built a legit skinning app and decided to make some $ at it .. big deal .. hell i wish i could do something i love and get paid...geez lets just cruisify the guys for makeing their dream a reality.
i guess we should run off to winamp since they started chargeing for thier "enhanced edition" and rag on them too..(being that it uses free skins).
it has come to my attention, that any time stardock is mentioned .. its an all out war on most sites.(reguardless of the subject of the thread)..this kind of beat on each other mentality is what has driven many great skinning sites in to the crapper..
Reply #24 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:32 AM
| Some people cant handle being told that there work is not perfect. Face it, perfect doesnt exist. |
true .. but then telling them they suk and should give up dont help motivate them either...constructive criticism is better than being abuseive.
Reply #25 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:34 AM
Great policy. Not at all what I am talking about.
I will quote dunbar from the custo thread:
"As for who loses, that's a very subjective issue. Let me use a metaphor. You make a painting of a bridge, and donate it to an non-profit art museum. However, a business makes a copy of your painting and starts charging admission for people to see it. You meant your work to be free for everyone, but now it's being used by others to make money. In addition, you get no money from the business that copied your painting. Personally, I think the artist loses in that situation. It would certianly be tough to say that anyone other than company wins."
Very well said.
Reply #26 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:45 AM
Lots of people have opinions....some of them have opinions about what 'copyright' means....and very few have managed to get it right.
All of this issue is determining which 'interpretation' of the situation you prefer to 'side' with.
There are 3 potential forms/outcomes of 'porting' anything at all...whether done by SKS or magic or Auntie Flo's knitting needles.
1. Someone makes something from someone else's prior work. Yes, it's a port. This someone lives happily ever after playing with it.
2. Someone makes something from someone else's prior work. Yes, it's a port. This someone seeks and obtains permission from the author of the prior work to upload/distribute. He therefore is granted [limited] copyright for distribution. He distributes. Several someones live happily ever after playing with it.
3. Someone makes something from someone else's prior work. Yes, it's a port. This someone uploads/distributes this port WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION. He violates implied and inherent copyright of the original author by doing so. This is theft of copyright [as it has not been granted/transferred by its holder], and in our "Skinning" world we call it RIPPING [you doubtless have heard the term, emotive, albeit colloquial].
So....
What we get between here and Customize.org is two interpretations of the same article....which is quite cute...as there is only one article and no matter how many times it is read it still communicates one meaning...
Reply #27 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:46 AM
i believe brad and the guys were trying to help those who wish to port them to WB...it is a neat little extra that opens doors to those who might want to share their themes with a whole new range of users.
i seriously doubt that stardock saw the 160 skins and thought ,....."gee ma theres a ton of money in there.. lets get us sum"...come on .. think abt it .. it prolly cost more in codeing time alone,than they will possibly "make" from increased sales due to a few MSstyles.
Reply #28 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:50 AM
| You make a painting of a bridge, and donate it to an non-profit art museum. However, a business makes a copy of your painting and starts charging admission for people to see it. |
Well thats just plain stealing. Funny how metaphors often misdirect everything from the actual topic.
Reply #29 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:54 AM
| In addition, you get no money from the business that copied your painting. |
stardock copied nothing.they offered the msstyles community a tool ...that would be like gripeing at hewlet packard cause they built a printer that was used to print your skin to paper...
Reply #30 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:01 AM
I don't think someone should be able to change your artwork and then show it in a screenshot. I don't think artwork that is modified or altered in any way without the artist's permission should be shown. I had this discussion when Boxxi ported our Catwoman skin and then showed it in the screenshot section. It dilutes the quality of our original artwork.
As the original artists we do and should have a right to control how our graphics are shown in public. Something i don't see happening here. When i asked for that shot to be taken down i was told no. Now i put you may not alter or distribute our artwork in any form. It's clearly stated like on the nVidia skin.
Reply #31 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:08 AM
Reply #32 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:25 AM
Reply #33 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:39 AM
Reply #34 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 8:47 AM
It has been commonly argued for one heck of a long time that screenshots fall under the heading of 'fair use'...which, I might add is relevant to the US interpretation of Copyright Law...and not that of other countries...however the US/AUS free trade agreement means that will now be a little more wide-spread.
Wincustomize.com is, I believe the only site which requests that the wallpaper be obscured to prevent the 'easy' distribution/reuse of the single image... a quite tangible 'infringement'.
It's yet to be demonstrated [by anyone] that, for example a straight screenshot of a Winamp skin in action is actual distribution of the skin's bitmaps, as the bmps are quite different to what displays, anyway...
Reply #35 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:18 AM
Reply #36 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 9:48 AM
hey tech_cat!
Reply #37 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:07 AM
| "As for who loses, that's a very subjective issue. Let me use a metaphor. You make a painting of a bridge, and donate it to an non-profit art museum. However, a business makes a copy of your painting and starts charging admission for people to see it. You meant your work to be free for everyone, but now it's being used by others to make money. In addition, you get no money from the business that copied your painting. Personally, I think the artist loses in that situation. It would certianly be tough to say that anyone other than company wins." |
Copyright violation. Artist still owns the printing rights to painting even though it was donated. So it's same thing.
Reply #38 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 10:56 AM
I do very little "skinning" and that only for my own use. And I've never seen any msstyle that I would even want to use. Sheesh...Some people need to get out more.
Reply #39 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 12:57 PM
Let's simplyify the "exploitation" and "respect" argument to its basics:
This is Customize.org's msstyle library: http://www.customize.org/list/stylexp
Look at the top: It mentions Style XP and has a link to TGTSoft's website. Style XP is a $20 program that runs msstyles. They did not make the msstyle format. The more msstyles there are, the more profit one can assume TGT Soft will make.
So the staff of the site that ADVERSISES commercial programs to use msstyles is objecting because SkinStudio provides the ability to import .msstyles into the WindowBlinds format and that therefore, even though the FREE version of WindowBlinds and the FREE version of SkinStudio do this, that somehow in some way WindowBlinds may financially benefit from it.
Talk about double standards.
Reply #40 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 1:09 PM
The argument boils down to the fact that some people object to Stardock making money PERIOD.
The argument is similar to the equally unreasonable ones that "Microsoft shouldn't exist", "that Linux is the only way to go", "that everything is copied from Mac", and "Intel is bad for the CPU business".
Finally, it's just a waste of breath, hosting space, time and energy (and a few others that I no longer wanted to waste in this thread).
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 2 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #21 Wednesday, December 29, 2004 7:06 AM
My comment about the quality of winamp skins on this site still stands. I find that there are some very talented skinners here such as zrco. apocolypse67 is another that comes to mind... but the majority of the winamp skins here, I do find to be very poor quality. If that hurts your feelings, then that explains why you are at wincustomize and not customize.org. At customize we do not sugar coat it, we dont bullshit.. if something sucks, we will tell you so and offer criticism, if something is good we will also give you credit for good work. Some people cant handle being told that there work is not perfect. Face it, perfect doesnt exist.
Your opinion about my skins is fine. You are allowed your opinion, just as much as I am allowed mine.