Look on google android app store for quake games. Not only do you have 3 different developers, two of them chose to port Quake 3. I'm confused as I read an older story about a cease and desist with Zenimedia and someone else trying to port. I realize the engines are now open source, but afaik the content is still id's property.

Yeah, iD Software still own the content (which is largely why projects like OpenArena use all their own content). I suspect all three applications are dubious.

Originally Posted by oXYnary

Look on google android app store for quake games. Not only do you have 3 different developers, two of them chose to port Quake 3. I'm confused as I read an older story about a cease and desist with Zenimedia and someone else trying to port. I realize the engines are now open source, but afaik the content is still id's property.

Is it possible to search the news or any relevant info relative to your statement and link it here to improve this discussion?

I was going to point out your last sentence and stress on the word "content."

So far as I know there's never been an official FAQ type post anywhere but both Carmack and Hollenshead have addressed the issue in passing with comments in various places (game articles, YouTube interviews) that all artistic media content for their games are their (Zenimax's now?) property and not released as part of any GPL'd material (from what I understand this goes for any samples that may be included with source code). It's not supposed to be used for ports (but that doesn't stop that from happening) but they certainly don't like commercial exploitation without permission, that gets them really itchy.

So does Google Market just ignore any previous cease and desist? Did Zeni just figure it wasn't worth the lawyer fees to have to report every single time? At least one of the ports has been on almost a year.

Night-finger typing = pita for any long post. Here:
http://androidandme.com/2009/12/news...s-for-android/

http://code.google.com/p/quake-android
Note the specific gpl license he claims.

3 "Developers":

https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...jack+niu&hl=en
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...Yy5xdWFrZTMiXQ
https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...dS5xdWFrZTIiXQ

I think at least 2 of them are same person since they both have bad grammar and supposed, "email for money back".

FYI "Arena" is 1.9mb, suggesting it's just an engine binary.

Quake-Android's definitely illegal - they're violating trademark and copyright laws! Registered Quake is available on their downloads page as quake1_data.zip

The Wolf3D SOD port is 5mb....... suggesting the whole unauthorized shebang is there.

LOL even the android quake2 suggests "Want full version? search on the internet, find the full version data"..... yeah


"Dark Force" seems to be a repacked The Dark Conjunction mod + Q3... HMM.

Originally Posted by oXYnary

So does Google Market just ignore any previous cease and desist? ...

Technically it would be up to id/Zeni to pursue DMCA against the infringements.. It may just be that, as id have said on occasion, they just don't have the resource to police their content so rely on the community bringing things to their attention.

Google, being the platform provider is generally covered under the same 'safe harbour' laws that protects ISP, but they do have to (are obliged to) respond to take down requests.

So your saying that other than cease and desist. Nothing is stopping people from creating new companies each time and reupload games? Since it seems Google has no verification process unlike Apple.

When they do get said take downs. Other than closing account of these people, do they even attempt to lock any funds not transfered yet to "publisher"? Do they auto remove content from end user (like Apple) and refund? If they did have such a rule or forced legality, would this make them be more observant with verification? As any money they could not get back from "developer", they would have to swallow?

I am for safe harbor laws, but when sales are involved, doesn't, or should more Ip laws take presedence when you have a indirect/middle man "store" that is promoting illegal product and taking sales from it?

Which of the three Mobile Os providers app stores provide the most oversite for verification?

Fwiw: The Arena "demo" ports have the same exact instructions. But one is 2 megs while the other is 3

As far as the community informing id; with at least one game being on there almost a year. Someone would have brought it to their attention by now.

So Zeni finds the resource to smack down a person who made a Skyrim Map App for Mobiles somehow, yet they let this one slide?

Talk about weird science...

Originally Posted by oXYnary

So your saying that other than cease and desist. Nothing is stopping people from creating new companies each time and reupload games? Since it seems Google has no verification process unlike Apple.

When they do get said take downs. Other than closing account of these people, do they even attempt to lock any funds not transfered yet to "publisher"? Do they auto remove content from end user (like Apple) and refund? If they did have such a rule or forced legality, would this make them be more observant with verification? As any money they could not get back from "developer", they would have to swallow?

I am for safe harbor laws, but when sales are involved, doesn't, or should more Ip laws take presedence when you have a indirect/middle man "store" that is promoting illegal product and taking sales from it?

Which of the three Mobile Os providers app stores provide the most oversite for verification?

Fwiw: The Arena "demo" ports have the same exact instructions. But one is 2 megs while the other is 3

As far as the community informing id; with at least one game being on there almost a year. Someone would have brought it to their attention by now.

Apple have a bad track record on this as well, just a FYI - verification isn't the issue per-say... but in essence yes, Google, Apple and the other services, just like any service, do what they do under the assumption of a "good faith belief" in their users not abusing the system. The downside is that they *cannot* police the networks themselves because that would make the wholly accountable for the material submitted.

Incidentally, the opposite is also true.. although service providers do have to respond to take downs, the take down action is usually temporary in nature unless it can be definitively proved to be a valid claim (in which case the material is removed)... this prevent what's euphemistically called 'griefing' - people 'attacking' projects by filing false DMCA/take down requests.

Not sure about Apple. Look up the NIN app fiasco. They do have some oversite on the content they allow in their store.

Separate but relevant was Amazon removing conflicting titles from peoples Kindles and refunding money.

Right... and you can see what a minefield this is just using those example you cited. In most instances though, removals are typically instructions to do so unless they are outright direct violations of ToS (as was the case with NIN), which is different to copyright violations - those are the responsibility of the materials owner rather than the service provider because the service provider has no real qualitative way to prove ownership of something (it can't be assumed).