Don't get me wrong, good conclusion, and it seems to me he was "right" the whole time...
No, he's not correct. In fact, all he did was google some articles when I'd already linked you to the specific USA law governing it. Every single piece he linked is about
complete remakes,
not mods. That he doesn't understand the nuances of the discussion is because he's blowing smoke - anyone who knows anything about the issue would have seen my link to the Law and realized the "why" to "
why do companies prosecute IP infringment // don't give permission when asked 'courteously'".
It was right there, but of course Blazed didn't read it.
There's a world of difference between a mod as a tribute and remaking someone's still active IP, which I've highlighted continuously. Several times. Repeatedly.
To wit:
1) In contrast to a simple "rip assets & recode" most mods use third party engines, and the assets found within those (or original assets), often differing completely from the original game. Mods that fall foul of legal challenges (MERP etc, already linked) fail not because they're using old IP covered assets, but because they're using other copyrighted elements. e.g. "Middle Earth" etc.
Example:
DOOM RL. Doom RL is rather unique, in that it is a rogue-like, but obviously uses ID software's IP. ID software has chosen to just ignore it, probably because they like it.
Strike #3 for "Blazed" (Lazarus / U6 Project are #1 and #2)
2) In using a third party engine (e.g. D:OS or Dungeon Siege or SC II) the modder is not claiming rights to either the original IP nor the engine used (which, as I've stated already, requires a license & legal framework if you want to commercially release software). Mods are, by definition, non-profit entities, unless we enter the realm of hacks (where a
lot of money is made, especially in the FPS realm). This is pertinent because in all the cases he linked to, the authors were attempting to monetize their own code / engines that used another companies' IP (DERP - of course you're gonna get smacked).
Example: the original
Counter Strike :
It was initially developed and released as a Half-Life modification by Minh "Gooseman" Le and Jess "Cliffe" Cliffe in 1999, before Le and Cliffe were hired and the game's intellectual property acquired. Strike #4 for Blazed
3) If you want an in-depth and particular analysis of say, Blizzard and modding, I'd suggest you stear clear of vapid gaming magazines that Blazed google'd, and try something like this:
Detailed analysis of WoW, mods of t..., in particular with regard to donations Blizzardç—´ incorporation of new features based on mods was to ensure that the default UI maintained a robust æ–—owest common denominator (see also Reece, 2009). Blizzard had only incorporated basic features of the mods; they were not copied wholesale. The lowest common denominator referred to the basic features of popular mods relevant to most players.
In addition to the notion of a lowest common denominator, Blizzard also acted to protect its vision of the game. Blizzard used its legally conferred authority in mods ownership to disable mods that did not conform to its idea of good play. One famous WoW mod, Decursive, had automated, into a single mouse click, a task comprised of a series of actions. Decursive was a hugely popular mod, but Blizzard deemed that its execution oversimplified WoW by Blizzard standards of play. Decursive was rewritten by its owner to provide some relief from the tedious actions required to remove diseases, poisons, and curses, but in a way that was not as simple as the single膨lick version.For those who haven't played WoW, or any other MMO, there's a huge community of mod makers who make 3rd party add-ons for them. From GUI changes, to DD calcs, to fashion... you get the drift.
These are mods; I'm referencing these because although original, they skirt the grey area of monetization of someone elses' IP (in this case, Blizzard's). Blizzard simply used it's legal rights to squash any mods that they didn't like (without using the law).
Strike #5 for Blazed.
In the particulars of IP law, I've already shown you the way - as a modder, there's no harm in changing your mod to not incorporate someone elses' IP; but unless you're really stupid, remaking your childhood favorite is possible.
There you go - instead of bleating and just googling some vapid press, I actually know something about this.
TL;DR
Blazed knows little about the issue, and has taken a black/white stance he's been fed by the gaming press, usually referencing specific total remakes that a) rip art / name assets and b) have IPs that are commercially viable & used at the present time. Remaking Pokemon, when it's a global brand is
just fucking stupid.
Blazed, throughout this, cannot understand why I hold a position that covers both areas (he's complained about this three times). This is because reality is a little more complicated than a binary world-view, and it takes real brains to understand. Not pretend Lizard brains.
I, on the other hand, am showing you the Grey Area. Unlike Blazed, who thinks "monkey" is an insult, I know the real insult:
meatfucker 
