I need a copy of the EULA from FF7 PC

[halkun]

I am making Final Fantasy® VII Online.

The answer to this from Square-Enix will be "No, you are not"

It's amusing you placed a trademark symbol in there. I'm trying to figure out where to start on this one.....

1) You don't own that trademark. By placing the (R) next to "Final Fantasy", you are basically admitting that "Final Fantasy is a registered tradmark of Square-Enix." Unless you are trying to say that you own the trademark, which I'm sure Square will disagree with you.

2) As you don't have rights to the trademark, are are not allowed to use it yourself for you own personal benifit. Unlike copyrights, if a trademark is used widely enough in a generic sense Square-Enix can actually *lose* the trademark. They will land you in court faster than a copyright infringement case. The law says Square must be "dilligent" in thier trademark protection or lose it. If they feel they have been "harmed" they can get you for damages too.

Here's an idea, have you ever considered asking Square what they think about the project? What do you think they are going to say?

There is really nothing here that should piss off Square Enix Co., Ltd.,...

Except that you are using thier trademark for personal gain. Please keep in mind that copying data drom a CD-ROM to a hard drive or even from a hard drive to memory is a copyright infringment.

I want to remind you that there was a a bunch of guys making "Chono Trigger Resurrection" Not only were they *NOT* using any of the original data and were making thier own content, Square shut them down because it was too close to thier game. Never mind it was 3D with new soundtracks and effects. It was still Chono Trigger and not thiers to mess with.

In the end it just brings more popularity back to their dead game.  People will be buying Final Fantasy® VII again just to play.

Square is making a multi-million dollar movie based of Final Fantasy VII. I would hardly call it a "Dead game".

 

[Neo Bahamut]

Won't it depend on what type of program it is halkun?

I'm not too sure about the specifics of this program, but it could just be some sort of modification to the actual game, if he's just minipulating the game to do different things, I don't see where the problem lies.

In all honesty, I don't know very much about copyright law at all so please, feel free to tell me off here. The main thing I've seen that he could get in trouble for is the EULA...... but there isn't one.......... but this is all while no knowing what type of program he is making.....

 

[Qhimm]

I'm not too sure about the specifics of this program, but it could just be some sort of modification to the actual game, if he's just minipulating the game to do different things, I don't see where the problem lies.

The "problem", as we might refer to it from now on, is the same reason why we don't see Mickey Mouse with a mustache being distributed by individual artists. "The game", the executables and data files, is just the medium for the greater intellectual property that is the story, the characters etc. By altering the game to do different things, we are in fact messing with that intellectual property instead (even if we are every so careful not to use code from the original .exe, only use the original data files and portrait things exactly as we feel fits the game spirit). That alone is grounds enough for legal action, no matter what other reasons Square-Enix would have to shut the project down.

 

[Neo Bahamut]

Wow..... sometimes I just hate the legal system...... wait...... most of the time I hate the legal system

 

[Aaron]

Well, if you were in the position of Square-Enix, wouldn't you like to have some way to protect your intellectual property?

 

[halkun]

They have such protections, it's called "The Law"

Now let me state my side of things before I look like a hypocrite.

I'm sure that when Gears goes "live" Square-Enix will notice. I'm relying on several "pillars" of support to keep the document as legal as possable. Because my law professor likes it when I cite precidence, and in his own words calls it "good punchy stuff". I'll lay down what I'm doing to keep things as legal as possable.

I am not a lawyer, but this doen't mean I can't execize the law a little.

1) Sony v. Connectix.
This is a big case. I was involved with it. During the first vollys, Sony attempted to get an injunction against Connectix from distributing the "Virtual Game Station" PSX emulator. The key argument was the BIOS. You see, Connectix wrote thier own PSX compatible BIOS by reverse engeneering a real PSX one. Sony claimed that because Connectix copied the BIOS from a PSX to a computers hard drive, and then copied the BIOS into memory, they were breaking copyright.

Connectix also admitted that they downloaded copies of the BIOS from the internet as well.

It was argued that copying the BIOS for reverse engeneering was well within fair use, even taking copies from the internet. The judge agreed and did not put an injuction aginst Connectix.

Now, this does not mean you can go and download a FF7 ISO and rip it apart, however a precidence is there. I'm relying on this fact to allow me to reverse FF7's data structures. I contend that the copying of the PSX data onto my hard drive and memory is a fair use to reverse the system. I've been only using the PSX version so far. Now that there is no reversing clause in the EULA, I'll be bying the PC version soon and working off of that as well.

This is the defense I will raise with my lawyer if I get sued.

2) Sony v Connectix  (Part II)
During discovery, (When the lawyers from both sides sit down before trial and show all thier evidence) My PSX doc was used as proof to Sony that the inner workings of the PSX were publicly availible and not a trade secret. In my intoduction I state in writing that I didn't use any of Sony's docs, keeping me "clean" When I was asked by Connectix's lawyer for the PSX doc, I also had to turn over all my resourses that I used to make the doc. Lucky for me I kept a running log of where I got all my docs from. The "nail in the coffin" so to speak was that I was also on a public Playstation Development mailing list. Here real PSX develpers talked about the PSX internals totally disreguarding thier NDAs. (Non Disclosure Agreements)  All I did was ask questions and I got answers. Of course as soon as Sony found out that listserv was shut down and I'm sure a few people were fired. I also got all kinds of threats and nastygrams from the homebrewers saying I "destroyed the homebrew community"

If Sony wanted to sue me, they would of done it four years ago when they had a chance. They had my doc with all thier "secrets" and I never stepped foot into a courtoom. The PSX doc was an aggragation of the PSX's internals formatted nicely. As Gears is simply an offsoot of the same idea, I will raise this as my second defese if I get sued.

3) The first Amendment.
The freedom of expression allows me to express how the FF7 engine works. Gears is a technical document first. My cousin looked at Gears and told me it "feels" more like a strategy guide than a tech doc. I have in my hand right now Prima's RPGMaker II strategy guide and a copy of the Neverwinter Nights hacking guide. (Which I'm borrowing the formatting from for gears) Both of these are remarkably similar to gears, and Gears is similar to my perfectly legal PSX doc. I will raise this as my thierd defense if I get sued.

Gears can't execute, and even though it uses screenshots and the like to convey information. I think I'm well within my right to do what I wish with the products I have purchased to acheive my goal.

However, I have a lawyer's phone number handy too, because simply having a defense doen't mean they won't attack.

But I've done this before and it's not as scary the second time around.

Especially when you won the last time.

 

[L. Spiro]

God, everyone thinks I am so naive because I didn’t take the time to correct my own post.

Firstly, I’m not making Final Fantasy® VII Online.
I’m making “Something Something VII Online”.

Of course I am not using their name(s) in my project.  I don’t own them.
This is why the old links to my work were found on http://lspiro.lordtrickster.com/SS7O when I still had a site.


Secondly, I know they are going to consider it theft of their intellectual property.
Precedence for this, however, is the Grand Theft Auto® Online mod, which as far as I know still thrives today (but really I don’t know anything about it anymore; I do not bother to keep track of such things).

My second post already explained why.
I already know it is forcing them to compete with their own product.


Analyzing myself right now I find that Christmas has me feeling unusually uncaring, so I will admit right now that the following things I will say may not apply on an average day.
But, for now, I don’t care if I get shut down.
I don’t care if I don’t complete the project.
I don’t care if it is illegal.
I don’t care if they sue me; I won’t pay.


I already know it is illegal.
Many projects on game spin-offs are illegal, but they thrive regardless.
The problem only arises when you make the owning company CARE.
Nobody cares about me.
The most they will do is give a Cease-and-Desist, but unfortunately by then it will already be distributed.
And since the client is also a server, there will be no way for it to be shut down, since everyone can host.


Now.
You mentioned going to them and asking permission.
Do you think I haven’t thought of this?
Please tell me one reason I should have for thinking they would allow me to do this.
I am not being sarcastic or rhetoric.
I would really like to have a reason to believe they would let me do it.
If you tell me how I should appeal to them in a way that maximizes my chances of having it approved, I will do it.

I am a professional game programmer.
I love Final Fantasy® VII.
I do not expect royalties; I just want the game to happen.
I do not expect a job at their company.
I do not expect money from them for having made it.
I am entirely willing to just hand it to them.

My goal here is just to get it to the public by any means required.
The only problem I would have is if the graphics got changed at all.
The only reason the project would be exciting is because when you play it, you feel as though you are back in the game you loved.
If they screw around with the graphics to make it “modernized” then it is completely pointless, and destroys it entirely.

I mean, trust me.
If I thought for a minute that they would let me just finish it and then give it to them for release, I would.

If loading their product from hard drive to RAM is illegal, then model viewers that we have made are illegal.
halkun has already stated that they aren’t.
Well, copyright only states you can not distribute or reproduce.
Loading their object files into RAM is not violating copyright, and model viewers are legal.


Really, if I could get permission from them I would.
And it would be great if we could make a deal where they give me the file formats so I can load the files.
But I do dream wildly.

So, if anyone can give a good reason to believe they would let me finish the project, post.
Along with it, post how exactly I am supposed to present myself to them in a manner that shows I am competent and not out for their money, or out to make them compete with their own product.

They could have hired the guys from Chrono Trigger: Resurrection, but they didn’t (even though they already work for a game company in Canada).
They don’t want people thinking it is okay to rip off their stuff, or that ripping off their stuff can land you a job with them.
So again, why would they let me finish?


L. Spiro

 

[Srethron Askvelhtnod]

halkun: Ok, ok, ok, fair enough. For the most part we've got lines of opinion clearly drawn. But with all of that said, what I think is still muddled is what exactly you're recommending L.Spiro do. Are you telling him it's best to drop his project, or that it's still legally workable if he changes his strategy?

As far as I can tell with something like this, the best way to ensure it gets out is to tell no one and just submit/announce it anonymously somewhere with a lot of distribution once it's ready. You can *hint* which is what this thread is (but now it's starting to attract attention...), but as long as you don't produce evidence, lawyers will probably wait in the wings. What lawyer makes money out of preventitive legal action? There's a lot more money to be made once there's infringement.

The "problem", as we might refer to it from now on, is the same reason why we don't see Mickey Mouse with a mustache being distributed by individual artists.

That's something that greatly annoys me, since original copyright law (at least in the U.S.) states that copyrights were supposed to promote the arts and sciences and would only protect a copyright (even a Trademark?) 20 years. After that it was supposed to go public domain (At this point, anything NES-related would be on the verge.) ::sigh:: Mickey *should* be public domain. (Although a picture of him with a mustache might be defensible under parody grounds.) However, Disney keeps successfully lobbying Congress to pass blanket copyright extensions, and that's that.

 

[halkun]

Sorry, my upshot was "Be careful". I'm just informing you, you are free to do what you wish. I personally think it's a cool idea.

I'm a writer, and I am torn. I have a story that's been with me for the last 15 years. It rich in it's depth and has many many many facets.

After I'm done with it, I don't want anyone taking it. That would suck. However, I have imposed a 14 year copyright on it. When (if) it gets published, I want that first and foremost.

However, I didn't say loading a model into memory was legal, I said there is precidence that loading data into memory for the use of reverse engeering will not get you an injuction, but judges work on a "per case" basis.

Here's some more "punchy stuff"

1) MAI v. Peak(1993) and Triad Systems Corp. v. Southeastern Express(1995)
Here it was heald that copying copyrighted data into RAM of a disk is a "copy" for the purposes of copyright law. These were rulings in the 9th circut, not an in-trial injuction. (an injuction is to stop someone from doing something while the trial is going)

2) DSC Communications Corporation v. DGI Technologies
In this case, it was asked that an injuction be intoduced to stop the defendant from copying the plantiff's OS into ram. The injuction failed on the grounds that copying didn not consitute a copyright violation, however this was a 5th circut court ruling and the defendants lost anyway.

...I have faith that these people will be first against the wall when the revolution comes..... ^_^